I would be hugely disappointed if this village was not offered to the community to have a say on who develops this (and reaps the profit). We need self builders to have an opportunity to have some serviced plots and as always we MUST ensure a sympathetic build which supports the clean air act, electric vehicles and zero energy build homes. With the opportunity to build an eco village please consider working with Basildon to get more affordable homes, housing associations and SME involvement. Look at what Oxford is offering theri residents in a one stop shop.

appears to be ideal but flooding, wildlife and traffic impact has to be considered.

Page 91 shows the proposed location of the new garden village; the proposed site is bisected by Byway 313_67 and footpaths 313_68 and 313_69 run north-south adjacent to the site. Multi-user access (including pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders) through the site could connect with the network of bridleways at the Plotlands, Dunton which links with Langdon Hills Country Park beyond. A fully-accessible crossing over the A127 from the site could link with bridleway 279_161 which could link with Byway 307_56 and to Little Burstead/Herongate networks. We feel it is vitally important that any new community has safe access for all users over the main trunk road and suggest that a multi-user bridge is included within the plans for this site. There is a good opportunity here to re-join previously severed links when the A127 became the heavily-used dual carriageway it is now. Employment Site 187 could also be part of this overall plan to enhance the accessibility for all vulnerable road users.

I strongly object to this development being built in a Green Belt area with natural habitat and wildlife. I thought the current government were trying to protect the greenbelt.
With this proposal there are going to be no borders and green belt left between towns and it will just be one continuous concrete jungle. I have lived in Essex all my life and in this borough for near on 20 years and the countryside is being eroded every day. Whilst I understand the need for more houses with the growing population, I think more brown field sites need to be considered and building where there is better infrastructure and more can be done to the surrounding roads and transport. Having traveled on C2C for over 25 years that line cannot take the numbers of new commuters that are likely to utilize it should this go ahead.
In addition the infrastructure in the surrounding area is already at capacity. The Lower Dunton Road has already seen many accidents in the last few years and 2 fatalities recently. In the bad weather the road is very dangerous and cannot cope with the current volume. In addition the A127 for at least 4 hours a day and surrounding roads in rush hours is also fit to burst at the seams. This new development in its current proposed location is just going to increase the traffic problems, increase pollution and put lives at risk.
I do not believe that the current proposals contain enough additional community services which are also at breaking point.

Good idea to take pressure off the villages, provided proper infrastructure is included in the plans

The design of Dunton Garden Suburb is poorly thought out & lacks the infrastructure in terms of roads to support it.

The area will destroy large amounts of protected greenbelt and wildlife which is highly valued by the community & which our forefathers had the sense to preserve.

This is a knee jerk reaction to perceived overpopulation. We should wait to see the full impact to net UK migration of Brexit before destroying our greenbelt land

I am basically opposed to the idea of a new town of this size at Dunton (Lets not call it a Garden Village, its a new town),

However I see it could work IF it is fully supported and not just another housing estate with a few shops here and there.

In your plan, when referring to Dunton for things like school places and Hospital/Doctor facilities, you use terms like "we are working
with partners to finalise the right mix" AND "The Council are working
with the County Council and other
stakeholders to define the exact
minimum scale of the secondary school
infrastructure provision for Dunton" AND "Opportunities
are being explored to deliver new
integrated health facilities at Dunton
Hills to support the sustainability of the
settlement" and this is where the problem lies. Its all too vague and open ended and they could end in lack of agreement with your 'Partners', and then what?

Nothing should be built at Dunton until it is a proven self-sustaining new town with sufficient hospital/Doctor/School/transport etc places ALL agreed beforehand. Only then is something on the scale of Dunton even remotely acceptable. All the time its up in the air with "we are working with" and "we are exploring" type statements then nothing is agreed and therefore nothing should be built.

However, added to this is the transport infrastructure. Does anyone writing this plan actually use the A127? You speak as though its a fine smoothly running road, where as its reality its an already very busy road and in rush hour virtually 'nose to tail' traffic. An extra 9,000 odd Dunton residents will make this significantly worse. Has this large increase in traffic been factored in? Also, the new planned Thames crossing will bring many more cars and lorries to the close by area, has this traffic been factored into the plan as it grinds its way north past Dunton and up the A128 and through Brentwood? Its a massive amount of traffic, congestion and pollution, right on your 'New village'.

The hospital facilities in the Brentwood, Shenfield and now Dunton new town area, seem to frequently feature on local radio and national TV for all the wrong reasons. Lack of Beds, unable to take patients in, slow response to 999 emergencies etc. Without a large increase to the main Hospital facilities in the area, a new town the size of the Duntan proposal can only make this worse. Is this hospital expansion being considered along with this new town? If not, it should be,

This site will obliterate 257 hectares of Green belt.
The A127 cannot support this development. Why would Brentwood Council not consider further development along the A12 corridor with such excellent crossrail connections?
Residents would pay their council tax to Brentwood council but using Basildon facilities and infrastructure.
Schools, hospitals and the c2c train line is inadequate 'Dunton Garden Village'. Local residents of Laindon, Langdon Hills and Dunton feel it is 'out of sight and out of mind' of Brentwood, but in clear view of Basildon residents. This will have such a negative impact on local natural environment.

I'm in support of the proposal but strongly advocate looking at continental ideas for eco-friendly, low-cost, smart, colourful & energy efficient homes with cutting-edge design.

all flooding risks should be examined & mitigated.
The mooted new rail link/station should be provided as an essential to reduce car movements to 7 from London on A127.
Landscaping, planting and design of the overall village should reflects that of a village with community facilities in rural surroundings.

Great opportunity to enhance the area and a good housing development site. It provides ample space for future expanse.

Infrastructure (roads and train at west horndon), even once updated cannot cope with the size of this development. As it would be built overtime, chaos would ensue due to the lack of investment in travel. The trains at west horndon, are already crowded and could not cope with additional persons at Laindon or West Horndon station. In addition, the roadway in West Horndon village would not cope with additional cars going too and from the station and would pose significant accident risk.

This is an important area of green belt that should not be developed.

Basildon and Thurrock Hospital is experiencing frequent black and critical alerts with no plans to increase capacity. This development will make the situation much worse.

The road infrastructure in this area cannot cope with more traffic, especially the A127 and A128. Due to the close proximity of buildings these roads cannot be widened and there are no plans in place to increase their capacity.

There is a risk that this development will cause flooding along the Mardyke flood plane. Measures to prevent this would be far too expensive.

Funds from CLI will be insufficient to provide the needed infrastructure for these needs and for schools etc.

Sport England made detailed representations in the 2015 consultation on this proposal. In summary, the allocation policy for the site will need to address the following matters:

* Provision will need to be made for retaining or replacing the Dunton Hills Golf Centre unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that it is surplus to requirements through a golf course needs assessment. Without this, any site allocation would be contrary to current Government policy in paragraph 74 of the NPPF. Due to the size of the golf centre and the potential impact that its retention/replacement would have on the delivery of the development it is advocated that a needs assessment is undertaken as part of the masterplanning stage;
* The Council's emerging evidence base for sport (Playing Pitch Strategy and Built Facilities Strategy) should be used (together with the Basildon Borough Council's emerging evidence base) to inform the scale and nature of community sports facility provision that will need to be provided on-site or off-site to meet the additional needs generated by a development of this scale. The site allocation policy should require the development to make provision for community sports facilities in accordance with local plan policies and the evidence base.
* Sport England & Public Health England's Active Design guidance should be used for guiding the masterplanning of the development in order to create environments which promote active lifestyles in the new development and thereby help meet the local plan's wider strategic objective relating to promoting and enhancing health and well-being (SO11)

While the proposed masterplan would be expected to consider these matters, it is advocated that these issues are highlighted in the allocation policy in order to provide a framework for the subsequent masterplan.

This site allocation includes Eastlands Spring Local Wildlife Site (Bre134). This streamside ancient woodland comprises a mosaic of Hornbeam coppice, Ash and Hazel, Field Maple, Elder and Hawthorn, giving a good vertical structure to the woodland. Wild Service-tree, a species with a strong affinity to ancient woodland, is found in the northern part of the site. The ground flora has an array of ancient woodland indicators including Bluebell, Yellow Archangel, Moschatel, Primrose, Wood Millet, Wood Anemone and Wood-sedge.
The southern tip of this Site comprises the scrubbed up line of an ancient lane (Nightingale Lane), which now forms a contiguous part of the main woodland habitat. Other habitats on site, including hedgerows, grassy field margins and copses, together constitute an important wildlife corridor supporting protected species (including bats and barn owls) and significant biodiversity. A GI masterplan will be essential to protect and enhance existing biodiversity, providing generous green buffers to existing sensitive habitats, functionally linked semi-natural habitats and protecting important hedgerows and existing priority deciduous woodland and Eastlands Spring LoWS. The aim should be to improve ample green open space to reduce recreational impacts on sensitive habitats and habitat linkages between Thorndon Country Park and Woodland to the north and Langdon Hills Country Park to the south-east. The overarching aim should be to achieve a net gain in biodiversity.

The preferred allocations have been identified through a sound and proportionate process in the preparation of the various stages of the Local Plan so far. Further clarification and assessment is required as the process progresses towards its Regulation 19 stage. These representations make comment only on the DHGV preferred allocation on which the Promoters represent the land owner, promotion and delivery strategy. As stated elsewhere in these representations, the Promoters have appointed a full consultant team and since agreeing promotion terms in 2015 have undertaken a substantial amount of site specific assessment. This assessment has confirmed the suitability and capacity of the site and confirmed that the site is 'developable' and capable of delivering homes for occupation on site from 2022. Subject to further investigations concerning market signals, early delivery of infrastructure, housing typologies, employment land typologies, early submission of applications for planning permission and innovative construction techniques the Promoters are confident that the development could deliver more homes within the plan period than the 2,500 originally considered by earlier stages of the process. The Promoters anticipate further progress on this over the next few months. The representations made here and in additional documents seek to outline the principal conclusions from some of the assessments already undertaken by the Promoters in relation to the suitability of DHGV.
As part of a clear process of assessment sufficient to give confidence that the largest strategic housing led allocation in the plan is deliverable and is so in such a way that it would achieve the intended vision and strategic objectives of the Local Plan the Promoters have made available and will continue to make available to the Local Plan process all appropriate assessments. In addition, the Promoters believe that in order to ensure that the policy framework for DHGV provides sufficient clarity to comply with Local Plan guidance, give confidence that the development will achieve garden village principles within the specific context of Brentwood and deliver homes early a dedicated new settlement chapter should be contained in the Regulation 19 These representations contain suggested chapter headings and envisage the incorporation of two separate but linked policies, one outlining Garden Village Principles and a second detailing some of the site specific requirements for DHGV. Plan. Not only would such a chapter and policies 'anchor' subsequent applications for planning permission with a sound policy framework they would satisfy the aim of Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) paragraph 12-010.
"Where sites are proposed for allocation, sufficient detail should be given to provide clarity to developers, local communities and other interests about the nature and scale of development (addressing the 'what, where, when and how' questions).
The Promoters, together with stakeholders, continue to undertake further assessments. The intention is to feed these assessments into the suggested policies where appropriate. Revisions may include references to scale and size of community facilities to be provided, the scale and nature of the mix of housing tenures and types and detail of employment mix. In the meantime, the additional documents submitted with these representations and references to earlier evidence prepared by the Promoters may assist in the necessary understanding.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) -

ECC advise that if the DHGV allocation is being proposed as a 'Garden Village' it is recommended that the Garden City principles as outlined in the NPPF (paragraph 52) and the 2013 TCPA's publication "Creating garden cities and suburbs today" are incorporated into the Draft Plan policy to ensure delivery.

Paragraph 67 - This paragraph implies that, at some stage, the Dunton Hills Development is expected to increase from 2500 homes to 3500 homes. It will be important therefore in considering the initial design layout for this development to ensure that sufficient and appropriate access is provided for sustainable modes, to enable it to be served both in the initial and extended scenarios. This will likely mean safeguarding corridors for sustainable modes to traverse between the two phases. However paragraph 84 refers to pupil numbers based on the site accommodating 4000 dwellings as does the narrative for the site on P91.

Highways & transportation Comment -
Transport Assessment required to fully assess the impact on the A127 and A128. Brentwood needs to be aware of and acknowledge the A127 Corridor for Growth proposals one of which is to widen the A127 to 3 lanes. This will require land to both north and south of the corridor and therefore land should be safe guarded in the local plan to accommodate this future highway improvement.
Consideration must be given to how residents of the new village will access nearby railway stations using sustainable transport.
Good connectivity to the larger towns and employment opportunities via network of cycle paths should also be provided.
Development throughout this site will need to be viewed from a holistic perspective to ensure that it contributes to a pool of funding to provide an enhanced level of bus service to serve the 4000 homes planned. It will also be important to ensure that the design layout of the site facilitates sustainable access, ideally with bus gates or other interventions designed to maximise such access whilst giving these modes a journey time advantage.

Economic Comment -
Master planning is required in conjunction with neighbouring LPA's, and in the context of emerging South Essex 2050 vision.

Historic Environment Comment -
The site will completely surround Dunton Hills, with the potential to cause substantial harm to the heritage asset as per paragraph 133 of the NPPF (dependent on the contribution which its setting makes to its significance). It also heavily intrudes on the setting of Dunton Hall and the Church of St. Mary, which read as an historic church hall complex, the isolated setting of which makes an important contribution to their significance.
Constraint: Historic Church Hall complex on boundary will impact on setting. Likely to contain further extensive archaeological deposits

Dunton Hills Garden Village -
ECC recommends that BBC should seek to produce a Development Plan Document (DPD) to support the planning policy position for DHGV. This will ensure that the development can be delivered with the appropriate infrastructure and phasing.

This is Green Belt land, and is being totally misrepresented as being 'strategic development' when all other Green Belt is actually identified as such. This is not within the surrounding Brentwood area, so it completely fails in its objective to provide housing for growing Brentwood families, or essential workers. It is in an area of nature reserves, etc, and will destroy wildlife. It is in an area that has an already overcrowded road and rail system, without the huge investment that Crossrail and the A12 have brought to areas much closer to Brentwood itself. The large allocation of Traveller pitches will cause a ghettoisation, even if they are divided into smaller sub plots, as they are within a limited area, instead of being spread around the BBC area. Sustainability of the plan means that growth should be spread across all areas of BBC evenly. The proposed development at DHGV dumps everything on the doorstep of Laindon West/Langdon Hills, where there is limited medical facilities, and no secondary school. All school children from the existing area already have to travel along the congested A128 or back roads to Billericay schools, and thousands of extra houses in this vicinity will only increase this further, increasing the risk of accidents and delays.

This proposed site completely fails in the mandate to spread growth across the Brentwood area, to allow for growth from families, and employment generation, as well as making it a feasible site. Not only that, but it has been completely misrepresented, because it fails to mention that this is in fact vital Green Belt, that is there to prevent urban sprawl from London. This will wipe out almost all of the Green Belt in this area, along with the wildlife that it sustains, as well as the necessary clean air that it provides in an area already known to be polluted. The other Green Belt sites in the plan are clearly labeled as such, yet BBC has misrepresented this site to people reading this proposal, as it is labelled 'strategic allocation'. The only thing stratagic about it is the fact that it is dumping all of the required development on Basildon's doorstep, to avoid the problems that increased housing causes. The A127 and C2C line are heavily overcrowded, without room for expansion (only half the size of Brentwood's A12 and Crossrail services). There is no secondary school, so all children will increase traffic through Herongate and Ingrave, and beyond, every day.

Thank you and refer to your letter of the 2nd February. In response please note that I object to these proposals because of the following: The infrastructure in Brentwood and the surrounding villages can simply not cope with the additional number of people and vehicles that the proposed development will create. The road system in, around and through Brentwood is already under extreme pressure during the school and working rush hour. Our schools are at capacity and over-crowded and our NHS / doctor services are exposed and not able to cope with the number of patients they already have. The majority of planned development is to be built on greenbelt land, which I do not consider to be necessary. The greenbelt is there to protect us and to support the environment. We can not afford to lose this for the sake of expensive housing only to make developers rich! Once gone it is irreversible. The planned housing is not aimed at first time buyers but will end up being marketed as 'executive housing' and out of reach by all but the very wealthy. The disruption the planned building will have for many years in and around Brentwood does not bear thinking about. As already mentioned the road system can not cope as it stands. The additional construction traffic will only add to the problem. It will also create an unacceptable level of pollution from both the construction and then, once built, the additional environmental effect the additional housing and vehicles will generate. This is particularly relevant to the vast Dunton Garden Village site which will back on to the A127 and A128 junction, never mind the additional traffic that is going to head that way once the new Thames crossing is build. The developers always under estimate and the planning committees always accept that there will be less cars allocated to each property. In the relatively recent development of apartments that was built at the entrance to the village of West Horndon the cars now park on the road causing a danger to other road users and pedestrians. I fear the same will be replicated in all future developments planned which will lead to further snarling up of our road system. A high proportion of people living in and around Brentwood work and commute into London on a daily basis. The C2C trains running into London from West Horndon are already over-crowded and unable to cope with the number of passengers they have. Adding thousands of new commuters to the line, even if a new station were to be built, simply doesn't add up. The infrastructure simply can't cope. Brentwood is a pleasant place in which to live. I have lived here all my life and chose to remain when raising my family. I fear that the proposed developments will cause huge harm to the town and on a wider scale to the environment. The infrastructure we have will not cope and it will, as a result, become a place that I, and I fear many others, will have to leave. Please accept this as my formal objection to the planning proposals BBC have set out in their Brentwood Development Plan.

I object to this proposal on many grounds, the major ones being the already overused and congested A127 and Basildon Hospital.
I feel that Brentwood are being very selfish, proposing to build a large number of houses on green belt, and as far as possible from the centre of Brentwood and as far from Brentwood's own public resources of schools, shops and medical facilities.
Also to ignore government proposals that traveller sites should be no more than 15 pitches.
Please do not destroy this piece of green belt. It is what separates towns and stops the south-east from becoming one huge sprawl of pollution and congestion.

I object to this proposal on many grounds, the major ones being the already overused and congested A127 and Basildon Hospital.
I feel that Brentwood are being very selfish, proposing to build a large number of houses on green belt, and as far as possible from the centre of Brentwood and as far from Brentwood's own public resources of schools, shops and medical facilities.
Also to ignore government proposals that traveller sites should be no more than 15 pitches.
Please do not destroy this piece of green belt. It is what separates towns and stops the south-east from becoming one huge sprawl of pollution and congestion.

I object to this proposal on many grounds, the major ones being the already overused and congested A127 and Basildon Hospital.
I feel that Brentwood are being very selfish, proposing to build a large number of houses on green belt, and as far as possible from the centre of Brentwood and as far from Brentwood's own public resources of schools, shops and medical facilities.
Also to ignore government proposals that traveller sites should be no more than 15 pitches.
Please do not destroy this piece of green belt. It is what separates towns and stops the south-east from becoming one huge sprawl of pollution and congestion.

I object to this proposal on many grounds, the major ones being the already overused and congested A127 and Basildon Hospital.
I feel that Brentwood are being very selfish, proposing to build a large number of houses on green belt, and as far as possible from the centre of Brentwood and as far from Brentwood's own public resources of schools, shops and medical facilities.
Also to ignore government proposals that traveller sites should be no more than 15 pitches.
Please do not destroy this piece of green belt. It is what separates towns and stops the south-east from becoming one huge sprawl of pollution and congestion.

I object to this proposal on many grounds, the major ones being the already overused and congested A127 and Basildon Hospital.
I feel that Brentwood are being very selfish, proposing to build a large number of houses on green belt, and as far as possible from the centre of Brentwood and as far from Brentwood's own public resources of schools, shops and medical facilities.
Also to ignore government proposals that traveller sites should be no more than 15 pitches.
Please do not destroy this piece of green belt. It is what separates towns and stops the south-east from becoming one huge sprawl of pollution and congestion.

I object to this revised local plan for the reasons as follows :-

The green fields around West Horndon are designated as Metropolitan Green Belt, put in place to stop the London sprawl.

Too much housing planned for Dunton Garden Suburb this planned housing should be distributed in the North of the borough as well as the South. We have a two track railway here C2C. Shenfield has more than double that number of tracks. With the additional benefit of cross rail.
The north of the borough also will benefit by the expansion of the A12.
The increase of traffic on the A127 (which is already at full capacity) and other local roads will cause traffic chaos in the area.
This higher level of road traffic will also be the source of much higher air pollution in the local residential area.
There will also be a much higher demand for school places and appointments at the doctors .
The added threat of flooding with the possibility of the surface water going into the Mardyke river from the huge development planned for Dunton Garden Suburb. Where as a much smaller development here and spreading the rest of the housing through out the borough would be a more sensible approach.



Basildon hospital and the small inadequate doctors surgery in West Horndon will not cope with the volume of people that you propose to house in this area. Especially as there is much more land available in the North of the borough and hospitals in nearby Chelmsford.

Whilst I agree with the development of housing on the Industrial site in West Horndon I am appalled to learn that you plan to leave and move parts of the Industrial Estate still within this location. We have had to put up with huge juggernaut lorries speeding through this village on roads not designed for this type of transport. Also to put a travellers site within the village, with all the problems this could cause. Who will want to purchase a house with that next door. The people in Crays Hill have had huge problems selling their homes and all the village children were taken out of the local school. Having recently experienced some members of the travelling community whilst visiting a Tesco store helping themselves to groceries and then leaving with out paying, it fills me with despair that you want to place them in this village.

I object to the proposed local plan due to the following reasons: Greenbelt land - of the 8000 proposed houses, half of these are planned on the borders of Basildon council's greenbelt. What surveys have been carried out regarding the protected species such as great crested newts, bats, dormice, badgers etc which have all been seen on the proposed site. Little concern has been given to the following things: doctors surgery, hospitals, schools, viability of scheme. The residents of Langdon hills struggle to get their children into a good primary and secondary school. The proposed 8000 homes will add to the already full schools within close proximity. Where will all these additional children go to school? A new secondary school needs to be built. The nhs is facing unprecedented cuts. The new homes with add pressure to Basildon hospital which is already under pressure. If Southend A&E closes then it is hard to see how Basildon will cope with this and the additional homes you want to build. Pollution - there are no main towns nearby to the proposed houses or schools, doctors or hospitals. You are encouraging people to use their cars for short journeys adding to the already dangerous pollution levels found at the fortune of war roundabout. There are no nearby transport links again making proposed residents even more reliable on their cars. Where are you expecting these additional 8000 households to see a gp? All gps in Brentwood and neighbouring Langdon hills are overrun. Have any viability assessments been made? With rising build costs plus all the additional costs for surveys, removal of protected species etc against low sales values (due to lack of resident amenities, public transport links etc) will leave very little in the pot for s106 contributions. Why can't the developer be liable for providing a school, doctors surgery or something like this? If the sales values from the housing are likely to rise from the viability discussions to actual completion - are you going to ensure the developer is required to pay you an overage? Unfortunately it feels as though this additional housing has not been thought through properly and how it will affect our already struggling public services.