amount of dwellings being indicated is not worth the impact to the wildlife in this area,

The Village suffers from poor sewage systems, low water pressure, a fallible electric supply system etc. We also have a poor local GP services that presently can take 3-4 weeks to get a GP appointment without any population increase

Good brownfield site for development, self contained with good access to main roads.

Site Plan References 076, 077, 075B, 194, 294 085B: I have examined the Draft Local Plan and will restrict myself to commenting on the above sites, as I know the sites well. I wish to object strongly to the developments suggested at these sites, which would have a detrimental affect on the existing residents. Greenfield or Green Belt Land. I object to the use of Greenfield land for Housing use. The protection afforded was to prevent urban sprawl, which is precisely what this Plan achieves, contrary to the principle of the Green Belt. The Council do not appear to be prioritising brown field sites over development of Greenfield. Destruction of Habitats Several of the above sites are host to bats, owls, wild deer and badgers and a huge array of wildlife that will perish as a result of any development. Health The parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green health needs are served solely by The Deal Tree Health Centre. The Plan allocates at least another 160+ homes in the area served by this Health Centre. I know, from personal experience with appointments, that this centre is already "stretched", so another 400+ residents would mean existing residents health provision would suffer. There are currently no plans whatsoever to develop new healthcare with these very significant extensions of the population in the Parish. Infrastructure The roads in the parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green are already busy and Blackmore itself already experiences parking problems. The area, if developed, would require major upgrades to essential utilities for foul-water system, water supply, power, gas and communications. Transport There is currently a part-time bus service for parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green which has been continually under threat due to local authority funding. Any additional homes are going to create additional traffic, as there are no jobs proposed for the area or "senior" schooling, creating additional traffic flows and pollution to the degradation of the existing residents. Disruption The extent of the proposed expansion would lead to large-scale construction works over several years affecting, detrimentally, the local residents of the Parish quality of life. The issue of noise pollution, in particular, should be given weightier consideration than has been the case in the past. Blackmore Village - Site Plan 076 and 077 These sites are viable agricultural land once built upon would mean a permanent loss. Recently there has been an increase in the amount and frequency of floods locally and building on this land will risk a further increase in the severity of flood inundations extending to within the Conservation area, degradation of the environment and a disproportionate increase, around + 30%, in urbanisation of Blackmore Village. The recent development of Norton Heath Equestrian Centre by Epping Council, within a mile of the Village, will already negatively affect local traffic and healthcare provision. Tipps Cross - Sire Plan 294 and 085B The proposal of 20 dwellings can hardly be considered "infill". 085B provides the only recreational playing field locally and potentially threatens the future of an important local amenity, Tipps Cross Remembrance Hall. The density of the dwellings for both sites is also out of character with the local area. Unless adequate parking is provided, should this development proceed, it will result in an increase in pavement parking, prejudicing highway safety, already a problem in the Parish. Any such density would be overlooking adjoining properties and generate additional noise, disturbance and pollution.

The healthcare section seems to provide little detail how these essential services will actually be provided. What is required is more GP's and hospital beds for the expanded population. I don't believe online services are going to be of use when it is impossible to get through to an overstretched GP practice already. We need clear guidance on how our expanded community will be cared for and how these GP's and beds will actually be provided.

SITE 102- WILLIAM HUNTER WAY CAR PARK = Site is an astonishingly poor choice. With the expanded population and shoppers wishing to visit the town where will people park? From Kelvedon Hatch we have a sparse bus service already. Using the car is the only option especially if wanting to visit in the evening for dinner. With the expanded use of the railway especially what facilities will there be? If we wish our town to be prosperous and want people to come and spend there hard earned money, we need to give them the opportunity to park. Otherwise they will just order online or visit lakeside where there are all the shops and free parking.

SITES 194 & 075B - I object to these sites do the the existing pressure that will be put on to local services and roads and the small overstretched GP surgery supporting the local community.

As a resident of Kelvedon Hatch I have read with interest your proposals to build additional houses on two sites in our village: 075B - stocks lane - 30 units and 194 - Blackmore road / A128 - 23 units I object to these proposals because of the following reasons:1) This is a rural village. The encroachment onto green belt land destroys the natural setting of the area. The village has already lost land to housing developments of densely packed units (I refer to development sound Mill Way and Briarwood) and so we have already sacrificed green belt to alleviate the pressure on housing in the area. 2) I have regularly seen deer in the field on Blackmore Rd as well as bird life and mammals. I feel strongly that these green belt sites should remain protected for local wildlife. 3) These sites would aggravate congestion and place additional pressure on local roads especially on Blackmore Rd and the junction with the A128. This would add to congestion (contributed to by lack of parking restrictions on Blackmore Rd which prevents both lanes of road being freely used). 4) the density of housing proposed on the Blackmore Road site would increase the paving and tarmacking of the land, reducing water absorption. The junction of Blackmore Rd and the A128 is already prone to flooding - something that the Parish Council has been consistently complaining about for years. Eagle Field is currently used as drain point for this water yet is unable to cope. The additional housing would potentially make this junction impassable during wet weather. 5) The housing would place additional pressure on local primary schools of Kelvedon Hatch and Doddingshurst. I would urge you not to develop the proposed green field sites around Kelvedon Hatch or indeed other village and urge you to look more closely at redeveloping existing Brownfield sites, such as William Hunter Way carpark, within Brentwood Borough.

Thank you for your consultation on the above which was received by Natural England on 06 March 2018. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED Brentwood Draft Local Plan: Preferred Site Allocations As a general principle, allocations should be sited on land of least environmental and amenity value. In particular, they should avoid: designated sites/priority habitats; Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land; areas at risk of flooding; brownfield sites of high environmental value. There are 3 SSSIs within Brentwood District, namely Thorndon Park SSSI, The Coppice, Kelvedon Hatch SSSI and Curtismill Green SSSI. We have looked the allocations in relation to these SSSIs. Part 2 Preferred Site Allocations There are no allocations directly within or adjacent to SSSIs but the following allocations are within Natural England Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for residential and/or rural residential development: 81, 117A, 117B, 112A, 112D, 112E, 194, 075B. This means that we would like to be consulted further to ensure that any impacts have been taken into account and mitigation provided if required. It does not mean that we have an outright objection to these allocations. We have a more detailed comment to make on Dunton Hills Garden Village (site ref: 200) as follows: We have no 'in principle' objection to this allocation but we advise that certain mitigation measures will be required to avoid significant adverse impacts to designated sites. Our SSSI risk zones have identified that water supply mechanisms and the method of foul drainage will need confirming before impacts can be ruled out. Potential impacts from surface water runoff on water quality-sensitive designated sites will need consideration; good quality SuDS within the development would help to address this and could also provide biodiversity net gain along with other enhancement mechanisms, such as the provision of ecological linkages to existing habitats of importance and habitat management for S41 biodiversity priority habitats and species. The location falls within a zone of influence for recreational disturbance to internationally designated sites, i.e. it will need to be considered in terms of the emerging Essex Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS), which Brentwood Borough Council are committed to delivering along with the other relevant Essex authorities. For large developments, such as this Garden Village, we consider that mitigation of increased recreational disturbance impacts usually requires more than one type of approach, typically involving a combination of 'onsite' informal open space provision and promotion (i.e. in and around the development site) and 'offsite' visitor access management measures (i.e. at the designated site(s) likely to be affected). In terms of nationally designated sites, the development will also need to consider increased recreational pressure to the nearby Thorndon Park SSSI and Basildon Meadows SSSI (and any potential changes to the boundary of the SSSI; in Basildon District) and any mitigation measures that might be required. Habitats Regulations Assessment of Brentwood District Council Draft Local Plan: Preferred Site Allocations Section 4.5 Table 5: Screening Assessment of Employment Site Allocations: Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as 1.9 km from Epping Forest, this should be 19km. The other distances for this site and for other allocations mentioned are also incorrect and need amending. Epping Forest SAC Note that recent studies have identified a new housing zone of influence around Epping Forest SAC to be a distance of 6.2km from the SAC; this may be subject to revision. However, we agree provisionally that impacts arising from increased recreational pressure from Brentwood's allocations can be ruled out given that none is within 6.2km from the SAC. Para 5.10. We agree that 'At this early stage in the Plan development (i.e. Reg. 18) it is appropriate that both traffic modelling and air quality modelling are undertaken to confirm Brentwood's contribution to traffic flows (and thus atmospheric pollution contributions) within Epping Forest SAC to inform future iterations of the Plan. The effects on designated nature conservation sites (including increased traffic, construction of new roads, and upgrading of existing roads), and the impacts on vulnerable sites from air quality effects on the wider road network in the area can be assessed using traffic projections and the 200m distance criterion followed by local Air Quality modelling where required. We consider that the designated sites at risk from local impacts are those within 200m of a road with increased traffic, which feature habitats that are vulnerable to nitrogen deposition/acidification. Regarding effects on general air quality (regional or national), we advise that in addition to assessing local air quality effects, consideration should also be given to national air quality impacts resulting from diffuse pollution over a greater area. The UK Government has international commitments to reduce national emissions of pollutants and consideration should be given to impacts that occur on a regional, national and international scale and which also contribute to background concentrations. Essex Coastal European Sites Para 6.2: We agree that Essex Estuaries SAC and Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar are scoped in for recreational disturbance impacts. Para 6.4: We note that 4 allocations are located within 10km of Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar, including Dunton Hills Garden Village. Para 6.6: We note that All residential site allocations in Brentwood are located within 24km of the Essex Estuaries SAC. Para 6.8: We agree that Brentwood should adhere to the interim guidance that we have recommended in order to avoid adverse effects on these sites until the Essex RAMS is finalised with up-to-date evidence. Visitor survey have been undertaken for a number of European sites in the RAMS project and as such the zones of influence for recreational disturbance impacts are currently being considered by partners. The HRA may therefore need to reflect these zones of influence should they change from the current interim zones of influence. Para 6.14: We agree that the Council prepare their Plan in consultation with Thames Water and Anglian Water to ensure that development is delivered in locations that can accommodate increased sewage inputs. We agree with the findings of the Conclusions that further information and studies are required before the final assessment of impact on internationally designated sites can be made. Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of Brentwood Local Plan Table 4.1: We support the objectives for biodiversity and suggest that an objective is included to ensure development delivers a net gain in biodiversity. Decisions about 'Areas that are home to declining species or habitats should be a particular target for protection and ecological restoration' should be made on up-to-date information and evidence. Chapter 7 Appraisal of reasonable alternatives: We have no further comments to make on the alternatives. Chapter 8 Developing the preferred approach: We note that Option 3 which involves Dunton Hills Garden Village in addition to other sites which are a 'constant' is the preferred approach. 10.3. Biodiversity: We note the review of allocations which includes reference to Thorndon Park SSSI and The Coppice, Kelvedon Hatch SSSI. If it is likely that there will be impacts on SSSIs, we advise that the SA should undertake more detailed assessments and recommend any site specific mitigation that is required to inform the site allocation policies. 10.10 Landscape: We note the review of allocations which includes reference to highly valued rural landscapes. 10.11 Soil and contamination: We note that the current soil data does not allow an assessment of BMV land. We advise that further agricultural land classification surveys are required to inform decision-making. Section 13 Monitoring: Whilst it is not Natural England's role to prescribe what indicators should be adopted, the following indicators may be appropriate. Biodiversity: Number of planning approvals that generated any adverse impacts on sites of acknowledged biodiversity importance; Percentage of major developments generating overall biodiversity enhancement; Hectares of biodiversity habitat delivered through strategic site allocations. Green infrastructure: Percentage of the city's population having access to a natural greenspace within 400 metres of their home; Length of greenways constructed; Hectares of accessible open space per 1000 population. APPENDIX III - SITE OPTIONS APPRAISAL Table B: Site appraisal criteria with performance categories: Natural England has defined SSSI Impact Risk Zones for the three SSSIs present in the Borough. Impact Risk Zones relating to residential developments of 100 residential units or more tend to extend to 2km from the SSSIs' boundaries. However a further criterion of 800m has been included to reflect the number of sites within this Impact Risk Zone. (Note it should be Site of Special Scientific Interest). Natural England is unclear as to how the 800m criterion has been derived and we would like further clarification of this. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

See attached.

See attached.

I most strongly object to the sites 085B and 294 Tipps Cross.
This recreation field is a valuable and well-used asset to the community. It certainly cannot be regarded as "infill". Its loss would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the community.
The consequences of housing being built on this site would be:
An increased burden on the Dealtree Health Centre where there is currently a 3 week wait for appointments.
An increase in the need for primary school places
an increase in the volume of traffic in our village lanes
As Brentwood LDP is proposing development of 600 properties over and above the Governments target, I strongly urge the Council to THINK AGAIN. Build on brownfield sites not Green Belt land.
The building of 20 houses on these two sites is not justified and should be removed from the plan.

I most strongly object to the sites 085B and 294 Tipps Cross.
This recreation field is a valuable and well-used asset to the community. It certainly cannot be regarded as "infill". Its loss would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the community.
The consequences of housing being built on this site would be:
An increased burden on the Dealtree Health Centre where there is currently a 3 week wait for appointments.
An increase in the need for primary school places
an increase in the volume of traffic in our village lanes
As Brentwood LDP is proposing development of 600 properties over and above the Governments target, I strongly urge the Council to THINK AGAIN. Build on brownfield sites not Green Belt land.
The building of 20 houses on these two sites is not justified and should be removed from the plan.

I most strongly object to the sites 085B and 294 Tipps Cross.
This recreation field is a valuable and well-used asset to the community. It certainly cannot be regarded as "infill". Its loss would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the community.
The consequences of housing being built on this site would be:
An increased burden on the Dealtree Health Centre where there is currently a 3 week wait for appointments.
An increase in the need for primary school places
an increase in the volume of traffic in our village lanes
As Brentwood LDP is proposing development of 600 properties over and above the Governments target, I strongly urge the Council to THINK AGAIN. Build on brownfield sites not Green Belt land.
The building of 20 houses on these two sites is not justified and should be removed from the plan.

I most strongly object to the sites 085B and 294 Tipps Cross.
This recreation field is a valuable and well-used asset to the community. It certainly cannot be regarded as "infill". Its loss would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of the community.
The consequences of housing being built on this site would be:
An increased burden on the Dealtree Health Centre where there is currently a 3 week wait for appointments.
An increase in the need for primary school places
an increase in the volume of traffic in our village lanes
As Brentwood LDP is proposing development of 600 properties over and above the Governments target, I strongly urge the Council to THINK AGAIN. Build on brownfield sites not Green Belt land.
The building of 20 houses on these two sites is not justified and should be removed from the plan.