I object to DGS or any development on land once designated or known as greenbelt now known as strategic allocation. On the grounds: 1. The whole plan is a lazy solution. Brown field sites are under developed; 2. There will be no affordable housing, we live in an expensive area, for people to upgrade to a bigger house and make room for a first time buyer is not an option in the current house market, householder need to upgrade by 200,000 pounds at least; 3. Greenbelt or renamed as strategic allocation is not an option, it is a lazy solution to enable house builders to make big profits and concrete over our PRECIOUS countryside. We NEED our greenery, from a London prospective and a local one; 4. If this is a local plan the actual numbers of houses needed is not quantifiable, although various attempts have been made to pluck figures, with the EU fiasco we have no idea how many people are hanging around so there fore figures are farcical; 5. Providing houses for people and destroying Greenbelt to accommodate unaffordable housing is totally unacceptable; 6. Our greenbelt provides fresh air not only for London but soaks up pollution from our one gateway east the A127, the A127 is already breaking records as regards to emission levels, we need the Greenbelt to protect this; 7. Wildlife will be adversely affected; 8. I am a Governor at Basildon Hospital and can categorically tell you that they have no capacity for thousands more people, the Government are cutting funding and merging hospitals to save money, not building more; 9. We live in a highly congested area, with spillage from A127 regularly passing through our village, with thousands of more houses without turning the roads into motorways we cannot cope with more traffic accumulating making more pollution; 10. Building on London greenbelt is not the answer, it should be protected and without Law Change is illegal; 11. The whole project is flawed, from consultation to misrepresentation of figures and need.

I have looked at the plans for West Horndon and can only say you will destroy what is a great community and a village atmosphere. I expect some growth but 580 properties and 10 travellers pitches will ruin a great village. 3500 at Dunton you may as well make and name a new town. The local roads and the A127 are already gridlocked.

I object to the proposed plans for the Dunton Hills Village because of the plans to build hundreds of homes on the green belt and set up a travellers site there. We already keep getting lots of travellers coming through Basildon and each time they leave they decimate the area. http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/16030967.Travellers_reportedly_arrive_in_supermarket_car_park/
Last year the Clean-up for the rubbish left at St Nicholas Church cost £7000! www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4451544/Huge-bill-clearing-rubbish-dumped-travellers.html
The local infrastructure is not ready to cope with the demand.
If you commute to London you'll know the C2C rail link is already running at max capacity and you're lucky to get a standing spot, yet alone a seat.
https://www.aspokesmansaid.com/travel-and-holidays/stories/content-7280/is-this-c2c-service-the-most-overcrowded-train-in-britain-
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/14144634.Commuters_crowd_into_trains_as_new_c2c_timetable_gets_first_rush_hour_test/
The Schools are overs subscribed and even families in the catchment are finding they can't get a school place for their children.
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/essex-primary-secondary-schools-most-526369
I understand the need for more homes but most of the new homes are bought (buy to let) by people who don't even live in the area pushing up house prices.
I urge you to consider my points and look at attentive areas.
Regards,
Mr Walker.

The following are all valid reasons why the proposal should be dropped: The additional strain put on Basildon Hospital; the extra passenger load on the C2C railway line.

Flood Risk. This development would surely increase the flood risk in an area that is already classified as high risk. How would this be mitigated? The exiting drainage system in West Horndon is not great, with surface water accumulating at times of heavy rainfall. What research has been done to review increased flood risk as a result of this development? Transport. The surrounding road network will not be able to cope with this level of development leading to congestion and increased pollution. How will traffic flows through West Horndon be manged, as the through roads were not designed to accommodate heavy traffic, as could be expected due to this proposal. How will the local and surrounding road network be changed to accommodate the new development, and when will this be consulted upon? The station is already at capacity during rush hour, with any delays meaning that trains are crowded to the point of not being able to board on occasion. The car park at the station is regularly full even though more parking spaces were recently introduced. The platforms at the station are not large. How will the station cope with increased footfall and still be workable? Environment. There will be negative impact due to noise, disruption, increased omissions and loss of open space. How will this be mitigated and what compensating factors will there be? How will quality of life for residents of the village be preserved - and how will the commitment to balance development needs with village character be achieved? Equalities Impact Assessment: Can the equalities impact assessment be published? How will the negative impact in terms of socio-economic disadvantage be mitigated? How is it equitable that West Horndon is absorbing the bulk of the development - quality of life for residents will be negatively impacted. Economic Development. The plan states: The exact range and type of employment development at Dunton Hills is still subject to detailed site masterplanning, but will need to be compatible with residential uses and of a human scale which is appropriate to a new garden village. How can the development be put forward for approval without this vital analysis; if the employment and economic development opportunities are not conversant with this large development, then social depravation will prevail.
I would like to understand why over 50% of the Gypsy and Traveller sites have been allocated to the village of West Horndon. How is this equitable distribution, whereby the geographical area compared to the borough as a whole is considerably less than 50%?
The village is already set to undergo a massive transformation, so what is the justification for placing these sites alongside the residential dwellings, is this in anyone's best interests?
How will security and community safety be assured?
Will council tax for residents be reduced as a result, is there any other compensation being offered?
Where is the impact assessment to consider socio and demographic factors pertaining to the village as a result of this proposal?

Strategic Objectives
I agree with and support SO1, SO2 SO3, SO6, SO15, SO16, SO17, SO18 and SO22
I disagree with and object to SO4 and SO7

Housing Need
On page 18 the 2014 DCLG household projections reveals, when converted to dwellings, an increase from 322 to 348 net new dwellings is the starting point for the annual objectively assessed need for housing. This is lower than the 362 dwellings figure in the Draft Local Plan (2016).
Due to the worsening of the affordability ratio in Brentwood and the increased costs of rental levels, I conclude there is a need for a reasonable upwards move in the proportion of new dwellings that are affordable. The higher price of housing implies greater profits from developments. This allows for a higher percentage of affordable housing to be delivered. The exact figure needs to be tested for viability but I expect mixed housing at 50% or above affordable housing should be achievable on sites of 15 or more new homes qualifying for affordable housing delivery. There is a ready supply of housing currently available through estate agents that could be termed unaffordable housing for those on or below average pay. The need for affordable housing, rental and purchase, can more truly be called 'need'. As the proportion of affordable housing delivered through new housing developments increases the total number of new houses required to deliver the needed number of affordable new homes can be reduced. If, as many are predicting and is expected due to leaving the EU, housing costs starts to fall, the proportion of affordable housing delivered from new developments would have to fall but general affordability would be improving at the same time. I reject the DCLG proposed new standard formula for housing need. Government schemes boosting the supply of money for new houses, buy-to-let investment schemes and other investment vehicles (UK and foreign) have distorted the market for housing artificially inflating prices, I therefore reject the adoption of 380 dwellings per annum as the OAHN.
The OAHN of 348 dwellings per annum equates to 6,960 dwellings across the plan period (2013-33).
2,109 or 30% have already been built, have planning permission or are expected to come through windfall delivery.
1,732 or 25% can be built on urban and other brownfield sites.

Green Belt
On page 34 at 74 it says "Government policy states that Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. The PPTS states that Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances." This is the only reference to the need for exceptional circumstances in the document but paragraph 83 of the NPPF says "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances" but we are not told what these are or if there any. Paragraph 87 makes it even clearer saying "As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances."

Green Belt is meant to be a restraint. Paragraph 87 of NPPF states "The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence." This Draft Plan has lost sight of this. Much of the currently open Green Belt would be lost to housing despite NPPG advise:-
In decision taking, can unmet need for housing outweigh Green Belt Protection? Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt. Planning Practice Guidance, Housing and economic land availability assessment, Methodology - Stage 5: Final evidence base, 6 March 2014. Paragraph 034 Reference ID: 3-034-20141006 from the NPPG

The Council do not have sufficient grounds to believe that the unmet need for housing or any other very special circumstances should apply here or could in combination constitute the very special circumstances required.

Green Belt serves five purposes:
●● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
●● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
●● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
●● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
●● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

To varying degrees at each site, now in Green Belt, there would be harm done to these purposes.

Green Belt is meant to direct development elsewhere. In this Draft Plan 4,327 new homes, or 70% of the 6,154 to be built, are to be directed to former Green Belt land. On top of this, employment site 187 south of East Horndon Hall, would also be lost from Green Belt. This is unrestrained growth, it negates the aim and purposes of Green Belt.

That said, the harm done to Green Belt is different at different sites. Brownfield development in Green Belt may not be inappropriate. It is true that many of the chosen sites are already compromised by some buildings on site or around it or proximity of the railway or A12.

I object to the 2,500 (potentially rising to 3,500) new homes at Dunton Hills.

I object to sites 076 and 077 at Blackmore and 075B and 194 at Kelvedon Hatch.

I object to this proposal specifically the Dunton garden area is because with the current economic situation and vast budget cuts to Local Authorities/Borough Councils - How would this proposal be funded? With a proposal to develop so many homes plus Travellers pitches realistically there will be more than 1 person per house/pitch. how would the infrastructure be prepared and developed to accommodate this? and who would fund this? With major cuts to Council budgets and in turn vast redundancies of council workers - who would be supporting this? will the councils be re-employing people in a time of cuts to front line services? How would the real issue of flooding be addressed? Building on green land at the bottom of a hill with a road that frequently floods is a real concern? Who would pay for the additional grand works and frequent repairs for homes in an area which is prone to flooding? Who will pay for the new roads? - the Dunton road does not have pathways and is already in grave need of repair? With the identified area being so far away from any services the occupants would have no option but to drive? How would a minimum of 6,000 cars be supported to navigate the roads and commute when the A127 is already at a standstill each morning and evening? Realistically with the distance from local amenities how would another "Jaywick" situation be prevented? How would the additional Sewage be addressed and who would pay for this? There would be a need for a new sewage plant - who would fund? With additional houses will local parking be addressed? Where would all there visitors park? On the Dunton road? The Dunton road does not even allow for 2 width cars to pass in normal circumstances? How will the issue of School/nursery spaces be addressed and who will fund this? There is already no senior school in the area - who will fund the senior school be funded? Will a new Dunton Train Station be required? Who will fund this? Bus services? Not everyone drives - how and who would fund for the repair of the roads, removal the bridge on Dunton road for a bus route? How would crime be addressed - Laindon police Station is closed - who will fund for this to be reopened and staffed? How would employment be addressed? Cars/bus routes would be required to access the jobs/Job Centre - who will fund this? The current roads are already full of pot holes - will these be fixed first and if so who will pay? Hospitals - Basildon Hospital is already bursting and unable to cope, there are no parking spaces - with the only guarantee of a space to arrive by ambulance - who will fund for the hospital to improve and accommodate these additional people? An additional car park would also be required? Basildon Hospital has no plans for expansion - if this development was to go ahead this is jeopardising people's health and well-being - who would put on additional services to fund the additional health and mental issues which will arrive? Dr surgeries - with the current situation for obtaining an appointment and referrals' to specialist services - who will fund the new Doctors surgery and specialist surgery provisions? Additional Parking spaces for Basildon Town Centre will need to be developed as it is already at maximum capacity - who would pay for this? With the amount of infrastructure which needs to be developed to even realistically comprehend this development it is unachievable and would take approx. 20 years - who would pay? Would Basildon Council Tax increase to fund this? In a borough which already experiences huge amounts of deprivation with stretched services - how can this be considered a solution? In regard to the travellers pitches - where are the services for the travellers - who would fund this? With the green belt land within the proposed area - who would fund someone to monitor for this for illegal set up of additional pitches? will we end up with another Crays Hill Dale farm situation? If yes who will fund for this to be addressed? The area proposed is precious greenbelt - home to endangered species, where would they go? Who will pay for them to be rehomed? Is this proposal legal due to the area being green belt with endangered species bats, water voles, great crested newts etc. Considering this is a Brentwood proposal this will mainly effect Basildon residents... you can't just move the issue onto someone's doorstep when there are already thousands of homes being built within Basildon.

Re BRENTWOOD BORUGH COUNCIL - 15 YEAR PLAN. BLACKMORE VILLAGE and DUNTON. BLACKMORE. I refer to Blackmore being a Village I know well. Not identified by The Council are numerous small plots and 2 larger areas of land suitable for both single houses or more houses. For example 1. The Green - Numerous areas of land and Wakelins Garage. Excluding all Land relating to The Bull which is needed re the Pubs viability when it reopens. Shown marked with red X's on enclosed Plan 2.Chelmsford Rd. - Numerous Plots. Shown marked with red X's on enclosed Plan. 3. Land bounded by Chelmsford Road and Red Rose Lane. The Land is poor quality and also too small to be viable to be farmed, but not identified by The Council. Shown outlined red on enclosed Plan. The Council have identified 2 larger areas of land i.e. Red Rose Lane/Woolard Way/Orchard Piece. Similar criteria apply to the suggested land in that the 2 larger plots proposed by The Council are also poor quality and not viable for farming. Also they are on the edge of Blackmore Village. Access to the suggested land could be from the proposed adjacent development and/orChelmsford Road. 4. Land bounded by Chelmsford Rd, Spriggs Lane and Elm Park Court and Elm Farm. This Land is Agricultural and of poor quality and also too small to be viable for agricultural use. Also on the edge of Blackmore Village. Would therefore be suitable for either, extend existing residential mobile home site, or a gypsy caravan site [which would help The Council meet its obligations in that regard] and/or homes/part homes. Shown outlined red on enclosed Plan. The land listed 1,2,3,4. and shown on Plan/s, whilst mainly small, together with the larger areas of land, would contribute significantly the need for more housing, whilst at the same time not over developing and spoiling Blackmore Village. Serious consideration should therefore be given which would allow Blackmore to provide much needed homes but not be over developed and at the same time Not encroach on good and viable farmland. Proposals would - 1. Enable The Council to fulfil its Housing and other obligations. 2,Ensure Blackmore Village remains vibrant, also supporting Local Businesses including shops and 3 pubs. Conclusion: Assist with meeting the urgent need for homes; Would not take any viable or large area of agricultural land; Would ensure Blackmore remains vibrant but Not overdeveloped; Would enable The Council to comply with its obligations; By spreading the proposed development of housing in villages and small developments over the whole Borough would mean only minor local road improvements may be needed; Together with other parts of Blackmore also being suitable for careful development as afore mentioned together with other villages and smaller developments in parts of the Brentwood Borough would render the development of Dunton unnecessary. DUNTON. There is no need for New Development at Dunton as many Villages in The Borough such as Blackmore and other smaller developments with careful controlled expansion could serve the need for housing in The Borough well in to the future. It would also take a large area of long established agricultural land which should be avoided. Any new development at Dunton would need new shops and possibly new school and doctors etc. By allowing a large new development in one concentrated area would further overload the already overloaded A127 and necessitate New roads and improvements to other local roads. Conclusion: Proposals would - Take large area of agricultural land; Need new roads to serve the Development; Need new local roads; Need improvements to existing local roads; No justified need when requirement for homes can be achieved by careful expansion of villages and smaller developments within The Borough.

I would like to express my objection to the above proposed plans, for the following reasons: The proposed site is on a critical stretch of green belt land. Dunton Hills is an area The Brentwood Green Belt Review has already shown to meet the criteria for green belt - so should not be considered for development before other areas of Brentwood. The proposed development would be sited next to the A127, a road already extremely congested at the best of times. The structure of road surface is already suffering, due to a combination of council funding cuts and poor weather, additional heavy traffic will only serve to exacerbate this. Surrounding, alternative roads are also already suffering from extreme traffic, with routes regularly heavily congested, or blocked due to avoid to avoid the A127. Neither the A127, nor the surrounding supporting roads, are main trunk roads, none are in good condition to start with. Any additional traffic will make any repairs even more difficult to arrange, and would cause yet more disruption. C2C is the railway line servicing the local area. Again, the line is already extremely over-subscribed, and getting to the station via local roads, as above, is a struggle for commuters. The rail line itself may be able to expand capacity a little, but the fact remains that is is only a two line track, which means very little room for expansion. Contrast this with the large investment in Crossrail along the A12 corridor, and the benefits Brentwood is receiving from this investment. Th Government would not have approved this upgrade, unless it anticipated an increase on the Liverpool Street line, which then helps to unlock housing plans in that area of the borough. Healthcare facilities are already vastly over-stretched on the area. With the planned demolition of Orsett hospital, accident and emergency cover in the area is likely to be further strained. There simply is no capacity, especially since there seem to be no plans to increase capacity - rather the opposite, with plans to combine service as a cost-cutting exercise. Additionally, there already are long waits to see a GP, any further housing in Dunton Hills will simply service to make bad matters much worse. Included in the plans for Dunton Hills is provision of 30 traveller's pitches - but the Government has recommended that the maximum size is 15 pitches, half the number proposed. It does not seem likely that this would suit either the needs of the travellers, nor of the permanent community. To re-iterate - the above are my objections to the proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village.

While instinctively I dislike the idea of the continual in-filling of green spaces, I recognise that the population of the world, the UK, and our area has grown tremendously in the past few years and so something has to be done to alleviate the pressure on housing.
If these areas must be developed, I would like to see serious efforts made to ensure that wildlife isn't adversely harmed too much, and that green areas, ponds, lakes and new trees are part of any changes made. The building work currently occurring at the Mountnessing roundabout by the A12 appears to be taking into account none of these factors - it seems that as many houses as possible are being squeezed into the available space.
My objection, therefore, relates to the amount of people you propose to house on the various sites. Even a relatively small housing development can benefit enormously from having some green space, perhaps some water, and a small copse of trees (perhaps ones that don't grow especially tall but still provide a sense of something not purely urban - like the ones alongside the southbound A12 slip-road at Ingatestone). The addition of paths and tracks would also be very welcome, and would provide people with access to these small pockets of greenery amidst the new housing.
I'd hope you'd look at what cities like New York and Seoul have done in turning disused railways and roads into green areas in which people can walk, run or cycle. Closer to home, the idea of a Green Corridor in Romford, which produced Rise Park and Rafaels Park, is a good example of how developments can have a positive impact on their surroundings. The point that such developments demonstrate is that even very small pockets of greenery, especially trees, can provide huge environmental, health and wellbeing benefit. I recognise that except for the Dunton Garden Village (where there is no excuse for not planning something fit for a better future), the developments on this plan are relatively small, but that doesn't mean that trees, bushes, paths, etc. can't be included. Just a small number of the right kind of plants, trees and bushes can have an enormously beneficial impact for wildlife and therefore the natural environment. As just one such idea, all the proposals that border the A12 should be lined by trees - this would make them more pleasant places to live and could end up increasing the number of trees in those areas.
If these planned developments end up the way the one in Mountnessing seems to be turning out - lots of houses squashed in to a small piece of land next to the busiest of roads -- I think the character of Brentwood and its surrounding villages will be lost. If, however, we take the opportunity to develop housing that balances the need for housing stock with the need to develop mindfully, we could end up with some attractive homes in new housing estates that would be good for wildlife and people.

The consultation document proposes a large number of possible sites for the development of residential and business properties. The supporting evidence on critical strategic infrastructure is poor; indeed they are described as "interim" and leave many issues not assessed. Of these the flood risk assessment for the area of West Horndon is a key missing assessment. West Horndon is recovered fen land and as such has poor natural drainage which was made much worse when in the 1800s the railway line was constructed. Subsequent industrial and residential development has only made matters even worse. Over many years there have been a number of significant incidents with properties being seriously flooded. Following floods in the early 1980s surface water drainage was improved but the risk is still significant and during the winters of both 2012 and 2013 properties were once again flooded. The NPPF is very clear (paragraphs 94 & 100 - 103) that any development must take full account of flood risk before development is considered. Given the lack of detailed flood risk assessment it is impossible for anyone to come to a view on the use of any of the sites in the West Horndon area because they cannot understand the flood risk. Thus, I question if this consultation is valid given the public are being asked to comment on something that no one can take an informed view of because of the lack of supporting evidence. The spatial strategy identifies the A127 corridor as an appropriate location for the development of new homes and business and employment opportunities. At first sight this is a reasonable approach, however there is no supporting evidence that infrastructure in the corridor could cope with the additional load such development would create. Currently the A127 is at or over capacity much of the time as is the C2C railway line. Given that other local authorities are proposing development that would need to be supported by the transport infrastructure of the A127 corridor there is no clear evidence that it will be possible to upgrade the current road and rail systems to cope with the additional housing/business development being proposed in this consultation document. I should point out that the rail line is only two tracks and Fenchurch Street station only has 4 platforms. It is hard to conceive that a significant increase in capacity can be created as there is no physical room for more platforms at Fenchurch Street and the line west of Upminster runs through dense residential development and thus the opportunity for upgrade must be minimal. Similarly, the A127 (which is only two lanes in each direction) west of Upminster also runs through residential areas thus increasing the number of lanes to increase capacity must be questionable. While I recognise the upgrade of strategic transport infrastructure is not within the remit of BBC, developing a Local Development Plan (LDP) in the absence of information about the critical infrastructure is a nonsense. The LDP should make it clear that any proposal is totally dependent on appropriate infrastructure upgrades being planned and implemented concurrently with the proposed development. I also point out that the trains from Brentwood and Shenfield are on the new Cross-Rail line and thus the capacity is significantly improved. There are plans to upgrade much of the A12 to three lanes in each direction - so with respect to transport infrastructure corridors it is the A12 corridor that would seem most appropriate to consider for residential and business development opportunities than the A127 corridor. This site, south of the Grade 2 listed East Horndon Hall is being proposed for development as an industrial site. This land is Green Belt and thus any development is inappropriate. The NPPF clearly states that for development to take place in the Green Belt very exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated. None are. This land is also subject to flooding - it regularly has standing surface water and acts as a storage buffer which prevents flooding of the surrounding land including residential areas. The planning application 17/01597/EIASO which first proposed this site for development as a business park includes a surface water flood assessment which only looks at a superficial level at the site itself. This is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 102) which requires a flood risk assessment that demonstrates that any such development does not increase flood risk elsewhere. Given the history of flooding in this area (properties were flooded, and the main road blocked in December 2012) this site is clearly inappropriate for any development. These now aging industrial sites are appropriate for redevelopment and redevelopment to residential (or part residential) use is appropriate for this brown field land. In broad outline I support these sites being redeveloped. However, there are a number of concerns that must be taken into account. 1. Access - the current access arrangement date back to the late 1930s when the site was first built. The amount of traffic in those days was significantly lower than today. The current land use means that much of the traffic is large HGV lorries which are large and easy to see. Redevelopment to mixed residential and business use will increase the number of cars and light van traffic which will increase the risk of accidents. There already a large number of small shunt accidents in the vicinity of the entrance to this site. Thus, it is imperative that before any redevelopment takes place vehicle and pedestrian access is properly resolved; 2. West Horndon is a rural community and the development must be sympathetic to this. This site is quoted as being 17.06ha. Given that rural residential development should be at about 30 properties per hectare the 580 quoted seems to be very much at the top end of the appropriate number; 3. Although West Horndon is identified as a transport hub on account of the Railway Station, access is only east/west so most residents will definitely need cars. It is imperative that the design of the site is such that car parking is at a higher level than is normal for transport hub locations. West Horndon already has significant residential parking problems and this redevelopment must not make that worse. Thus, the design and number of properties must be able accommodate sufficient parking. Design is for the normal planning process, but I would suggest that for the strategic purposes of the LDP the number of properties should not exceed 500 - reduced as necessary according to how much of the site remains in business employment usage. Broadly I support the development of these sites for employment. They are situated close to the M25 as a major transport link and their use especially for enterprises which use large amounts of HGV traffic would be welcomed as that would reduce HGV traffic through residential areas like the village of West Horndon. There are potential issues about access to these sites for staff working there, there is at present no public transport access. This detail will need to be dealt with at the full planning application stage. This area is Green Belt and thus development seems inappropriate. However, I do recognise that Brentwood is ~89% greenbelt and that opportunities for non-green belt development are limited. Given the strategic housing allocation central Government is imposing on BBC this area probably needs to be considered as an option. I point out that green belt to the north of the Borough is open and that development in such areas could be undertaken to make an isolated village(s). The Dunton Hills site is almost the last green belt gap between Upminster (London) and Southend thus the development of this site would basically create continuous development between London and Southend. This would seem to be contrary to the principles set out in the NPPF. I also question the ability to construct sufficient transport infrastructure to support the development, but I can find no assessments examining this situation in appropriate detail. However, given the situation BBC finds its self in Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) may be the least worst option to meet the strategic housing allocation. If this is to proceed it must be done in such a way that the impact on the surrounding area and communities is limited to a minimum. To this end the western side of the site needs to be restricted and turned into a buffer zone e.g. by creating a woodland. This would have the effect of visual separation between the two villages and would also mitigate some of the potential flood risk that the development would create. It would also make future attempts to expand the development and join the two villages much more difficult. This approach is consistent with the guidance in the NPPF for change of use of green belt land. I suggest that the site map is modified to make it clear that there must be a buffer zone between the DHGV and the A128. If this development does proceed it will generate traffic between it and the railway station in West Horndon. Parking is already a problem in the village of West Horndon and it is essential that means to minimise and manage this are sought and incorporated at the very outset of planning. The current plan suggest that the required G&T site are developed and located adjacent to new residential developments as they are constructed. My understanding from the results previous consultations is that G&T communities prefer sites to be away from business and residential areas. Indeed, one G&T site situated just north of the A127/A128 junction has to my knowledge not been used in over 30 years. I understand this is because it is too close to other developments. This aspect of the site plan allocation needs a total rethink.

The Woodland Trust appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations consultation.
As the UK's leading woodland conservation charity, the Trust aims to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future. Through the restoration and improvement of woodland biodiversity and increased awareness and understanding of important woodland, these aims can be achieved. We own over 1,250 sites across the UK, covering around 23,000 hectares (57,000 acres) and we have 500,000 members and supporters.
Ancient woodland is defined as an irreplaceable natural resource that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost. As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable sites from any form of disruptive development.
The Trust is concerned about a number of site allocations included in the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as they could lead to the damage and loss of ancient woodland.
Planning policy
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 118 states that "planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss."
The draft revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 5th March 2018, further outlines the Government's commitment to improving protection for ancient woodland through the planning system. It states that "development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable mitigation strategy exists." This wording is a clear recognition from the Government of ancient woodland's importance and better need for protection.
Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees1 states:
"Trees and woodland classed as 'ancient' or 'veteran' are irreplaceable. Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is considered important for its wildlife, soils, recreation, cultural value, history and contribution to landscapes."
Impacts on ancient woodland
Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value. Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.
Development in ancient woodland can lead to long-term changes in species composition, particularly ground flora and sensitive fauna, i.e. nesting birds, mammals and reptiles. Majorly adverse impacts would occur as a result of the removal of large areas of woodland, much of which contains high quality, valuable trees, to make way for the construction of this proposal.
When land use is changed to a more intensive use such as in this situation plant and animal populations are exposed to environmental impacts from outside of the woodland. In particular, the habitats will become more vulnerable to the outside influences, or edge effects, that result from the adjacent land's change of use. These detrimental edge effects can result in changes to the environmental conditions within the woodland and consequently affecting the wood's stable conditions. Detrimental edge effects have been shown to penetrate woodland causing changes in ancient woodland characteristics that extend up to three times the canopy height in from the forest edges.
Creation of new areas of woodland or buffer zones around semi-natural habitats, and more particularly ancient woodland, will help to reduce and ameliorate the impact of damaging edge effects, serving to improve their sustainability. The size of the buffer is dependent on the intensity of land use in the intervening matrix between ancient woods.
Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees states:

"Development can affect ancient woodland and veteran trees, and the wildlife they support, when it takes place on the site, or nearby. You can assess the potential impacts using this assessment guide and use this to help you with planning decisions.
(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences).
Direct impacts of development on ancient woodland or veteran trees include:
* damaging or destroying all or part of them (including their soils, ground flora, or fungi)
* damaging roots and understorey (all the vegetation under the taller trees)
* damaging or compacting soil around the tree roots
* polluting the ground around them
* changing the water table or drainage of woodland or individual trees
* damaging archaeological features or heritage assets
Nearby development can also have an indirect impact on ancient woodland or veteran trees and the species they support. These can include:
* breaking up or destroying connections between woodlands and veteran trees
* reducing the amount of seminatural habitats next to ancient woodland
* increasing the amount of pollution, including dust
* increasing disturbance to wildlife from additional traffic and visitors
* increasing light pollution
* increasing damaging activities like flytipping and the impact of domestic pets
* changing the landscape character of the area"
Development must be kept as far as possible from ancient woodland, with a buffer area maintained between the ancient woodland and any development boundary. An appropriate buffer area will depend on the local circumstances and Natural England recommend "leaving an appropriate buffer zone of semi-natural habitat between the development and the ancient woodland (depending on the size of development, a minimum buffer should be at least 15 metres)."
The size of a number of the site allocations suggests that large scale development could potentially take place. The minimum 15m buffer recommendation to all development is not effective in ensuring that ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations is not affected by potential future development. Buffers should be constructed on a case-by-case basis rather than a 'one size fits all' approach.
Conclusion
The Trust is concerned about the potentially adverse impacts that the proposed site allocations will have in relation to areas of ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations. Ancient woodland should not be included in areas that are allocated for development, whether for residential, leisure or community purposes as this leaves them open to the impacts of development.
The Woodland Trust objects to the inclusion of the below site allocations in the Brentford Draft Local Plan as they are likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland within or adjacent to their boundaries. For this reason we believe the sites in the table below are unsound and should not be taken forward. We will maintain our objection until there is a commitment to either avoiding ancient woodland or providing suitable buffers to development. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.
We hope you find our comments to be of use to you. The Woodland Trust is happy to provide any additional information or support regarding the protection of ancient woodland. If you require any further information regarding points raised within this document, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

081 Council Depot,
The Drive,
Warley
Brentwood
CM13 3BH Brentwood Housing - 2.98 ha
Masterplan opportunities (potential for mixed use) when considered along with adjoining sites 117A and 117B. Adjacent to AW on eastern boundary Type - ARW
Name - Barrack Wood aka Harts/Kents Woods
Size - 37.711702 ha
Grid ref - TQ596917

117A & 117B Ford Offices,
Eagle Way,
Warley
Brentwood
CM13 3BW Brentwood Housing and employment - 8.09 ha
Masterplan opportunities (potential for mixed use) when considered along with adjoining sites 117A and 117B.
AW on eastern boundary. Approx. 12m buffer of woodland (non-AW). Type - ARW
Name - Harts/Kents Woods
Size - 37.711702 ha
Grid ref - TQ596917

083 Land west of Warley Hill,
Pastoral Way
Warley
CM14 5HJ Brentwood Housing - 2.21 ha AW 37m to West of site Type - ASNW
Name - Clements Wood
Size - 1.490825 ha
Grid ref - TQ588921

263 Land east of Chelmsford Road,
Shenfield Brentwood Housing - 9.85 ha
Opportunity to create a masterplan along with adjoining proposed allocations (site refs: 158, 034, 087, 235 and 276). Adjacent to AW on south eastern boundary (length approx. 292m) Type - ASNW
Name - Arnold's Wood
Size - 1.56641 ha
Grid ref - TQ621961

034, 087, 235 and 276 Officer's Meadow,
Land off Alexander Lane,
Shenfield Brentwood Housing - 24.44 ha
Opportunity to create a masterplan along with adjoining proposed allocations (site refs: 158 and 263) Contains AW on eastern side of the site. Whole of this part of Arnold's Wood included to provide contiguous site with Site ref. 263 Type - ASNW
Name - Arnold's Wood
Size - 1.56641 ha
Grid ref - TQ621961

200 Dunton Hills Garden Village Brentwood Mixed Use - New Garden Village community including housing, employment, specialist accommodation, local shops and supporting infrastructure. 257 ha Contains AW Type - ASNW
Name - None
Size - 3.084541 ha
Grid ref - TQ645894


101A Brentwood Enterprise Park (Former Brentwood Employment - 35.47 ha Adjacent to AW on Type - ASNW
Name - Hobbs Hole

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

Having responded in some detail of my objections in the previous consultation, and those being ignored, I will keep my objections to the Brentwood Local Plan, precise and to the point.
South Essex has a Metropolitan Green Belt in order to stop convergence of the towns in order to have open green space between them. In Brentwood's proposals they plan to deliberately cause convergence by placing this development between West Horndon and Basildon in fact right up to the border with Basildon, with whom they wanted to conspire with and have complete convergence in their original proposals, which Basildon resisted. Of course I understand Brentwood's reasoning, and it is called dump it south of Brentwood as far away as possible in order not to upset residents of central and northern Brentwood, where of course there are many options for development north of the A12.
Add to this objection in principle of defending the Green Belt, and the convergence issue, the infrastructure in south Essex is at breaking point already. Be it roads, railways, NHS, Schools, Doctors whatever, without guarantees of improved infrastructure is another reason why this proposal should not go ahead.

Section 12 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) "evidence base is increasing including masterplan work" and
Section 64 e - "Developing a comprehensive masterplan for the new garden village at Dunton Hills, to engrain the core garden village design principles"
* how can an objective view be made on site selection before this masterplan detail is presented and made available to the public?

Section 26 - "Commited to growth . . . but in a way that maintains and enhances unique local character"
* wheras DHGV will completely destroy the unique local character of Dunton Village which is right on its border.

Section 28 - Strategic Objectives - S04 "A new well connected community at Dunton Hills"
* Please see fuller comments below - but how can it be well connected when it isolated from the rest of Brentwood, isolated from the railway and bound by already heavily congested roads

Figure 9 - page 26/27 - Proposed Housing Led Allocations
* DHGV is not included in the Green Belt total, effectively masking the extent of Green Belt land being developed
* Out of 381.25 Hectares of land allocated, 342.65 (257 + 85.65) is green belt. That's a staggering 89.8% Green belt land, which does not deliver a sustainable, ecological allocation plan.

Section 67 - Total dwellings
* Figure 9 shows a total allocated dwelling number of 6,154 houses. DHGV makes up 40% of this total. However, section 67 states this figure could increase to 9080 with accelerated growth within DHGV to deliver 3500 dwellings.
* This will add a huge burden to the surrounding infrastructure. With an estimated 9000 residents (section 105), a large level of investment will need to be made regarding roads, health, schools, shopping and work provisions. A sticking plaster approach will just not work given that many of these areas are already stretched to within breaking point.
* It just seems that not enough effort has been put into dispersing these houses across the borough. It is just lazy of the council to allocate it 1) on green belt land and 2) land from a single land owner - just to make the allocation process easier

Figure 13 - page 33 - Provision of traveller sites
* Travellers do not contribute funding in the same way that the general public do through council tax, national insurance etc. and therefore it does not seem appropriate to creating infrastructure specifically for one minority group
* That said, if traveller provisions do need to be created, surely it is better for all concerned to allocate them away from large communities and therefore the 30 allocations at DHGV would seem wholly inappropriate in that regard

Figure 22 - page 57 - New Employment Site Allocations
* The largest proportion of new employment areas are extensions onto green belt land - again along the A127 corridor, further burdening the already gridlocked roadways. The A127 is already experiencing pollution levels above EU allowable levels.
* The erosion of Greenbelt along the A127 means that there is almost no division from the urban sprawl of London and Brentwood / Basildon meaning that there will no longer be any green belt

Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The development is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons:
There is already too much traffic on the A127 and the proposals will make it worse.
There is no adequate cycle route to link the proposed development with anywhere, especially Brentwood. It makes no sense to add further residential areas when there isn't even a safe route to cycle between Basildon and Brentwood.
The green space between Langdon Hills and Upminster is an important wildlife corridor that needs to be protected.
The development should certainly not go ahead until there is 100% confirmation that a new railway station will be built between Laindon and West Horndon.
Brentwood schools, doctors surgeries, etc, can't cope with the extra demand.

Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The development is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons:
There is already too much traffic on the A127 and the proposals will make it worse.
There is no adequate cycle route to link the proposed development with anywhere, especially Brentwood. It makes no sense to add further residential areas when there isn't even a safe route to cycle between Basildon and Brentwood.
The green space between Langdon Hills and Upminster is an important wildlife corridor that needs to be protected.
The development should certainly not go ahead until there is 100% confirmation that a new railway station will be built between Laindon and West Horndon.
Brentwood schools, doctors surgeries, etc, can't cope with the extra demand.

Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The development is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons:
There is already too much traffic on the A127 and the proposals will make it worse.
There is no adequate cycle route to link the proposed development with anywhere, especially Brentwood. It makes no sense to add further residential areas when there isn't even a safe route to cycle between Basildon and Brentwood.
The green space between Langdon Hills and Upminster is an important wildlife corridor that needs to be protected.
The development should certainly not go ahead until there is 100% confirmation that a new railway station will be built between Laindon and West Horndon.
Brentwood schools, doctors surgeries, etc, can't cope with the extra demand.

Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The development is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons:
There is already too much traffic on the A127 and the proposals will make it worse.
There is no adequate cycle route to link the proposed development with anywhere, especially Brentwood. It makes no sense to add further residential areas when there isn't even a safe route to cycle between Basildon and Brentwood.
The green space between Langdon Hills and Upminster is an important wildlife corridor that needs to be protected.
The development should certainly not go ahead until there is 100% confirmation that a new railway station will be built between Laindon and West Horndon.
Brentwood schools, doctors surgeries, etc, can't cope with the extra demand.

Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The development is entirely inappropriate for the following reasons:
There is already too much traffic on the A127 and the proposals will make it worse.
There is no adequate cycle route to link the proposed development with anywhere, especially Brentwood. It makes no sense to add further residential areas when there isn't even a safe route to cycle between Basildon and Brentwood.
The green space between Langdon Hills and Upminster is an important wildlife corridor that needs to be protected.
The development should certainly not go ahead until there is 100% confirmation that a new railway station will be built between Laindon and West Horndon.
Brentwood schools, doctors surgeries, etc, can't cope with the extra demand.

With reference to BBC draft local plan headed Dunton Hills Garden Village: I strongly object to Brentwood Councils plans as described under the title of Dunton Hills Garden Village and I consider it inappropriate development that should not be taken any further because...It is proposed to build Dunton Hills Garden Village on land that is within the Green Belt, which is designed to prevent urban sprawl by keeping the area open and free from inappropriate development. As the proposed area to be built on is Green Belt land close to Brentwood Council's boundary with Basildon Council, this development contravenes Green Belt policy and will decimate the rural character of the area. This development will also have a devastating impact on the road infrastructure surrounding this development, namely the A127, the A128 and their connecting roads, which are already heavily congested, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours when traffic is at its heaviest. These roads will not be able to sustain the extra traffic generated by a further 2,500 houses in this vicinity, with the possibility of further being built at a later date, causing highway safety concerns. The infrastructure of the surrounding area will not be able to support this development as it is already stretched to capacity. This development would have a devastating negative affect on the rural character of the proposed area and impact catastrophically on local wildlife and flora. I would also like to point out that this development will set a precedent for further development on Green Belt land.

See Attached

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

As a resident of Laindon I object to the above plan due the proposed large scale housing development in the Dunton and West Hornden area. The reasons for my objection are: 1) Environment. The Greenbelt in South West Essex provides a natural buffer between the outer east of London conurbations. It must be preserved for the benefit of all local residents and the wider community; 2) Local services and roads - the A127 is simply not capable of supporting a big increase in traffic that a development of this size would give rise to. The road is already prone to severe congestion in rush hour periods; 3) Amenities and roads within the Basildon Council boundary would be negatively impacted as a result of the increased population on Basildon's western border; 4) Housing demand - the expected future housing demands in the plan are based on incorrect growth assumptions prior to June 2016. The impact of the UK leaving the EU is expected to reduce migration to the UK and consequentially housing demand in Essex; 5) Location - if more housing on this scale is deemed necessary by BCC then any development should be located closer to the central area of Brentwood where key infrastructure already exists, i.e. good rail services (which are being improved when Cross rail is complete), the A12 (which is set to have major improvements to it on the Brentwood stretch) , schools, retail, etc.

1. It would be wrong for Brentwood to build right up to the Basildon borders as there should be a border, without development, to prevent the townships from merging. 2. The proposed number of houses to be built will quite obviously produce more vehicles being used in the area. These will produce noxious gases along the A127 where it has already been proven that safe limits are exceeded. This will have a negative impact on health to local residents. 3. I use the A127 and the roads leading to it from Great Berry on a daily basis to go my place of work in Havering-atte-Bower. I have never been able to use the A127 for the majority of my journey due to the fact that there is so much traffic on it and it is usually at a standstill during the rush hour periods. Instead, I am forced to use country lanes, far less safe, in an effort to reach my place of work, or my home at the end of the day. Your proposals are going to bring many more vehicles onto the A127, a road which already is at breaking point and is being mooted as a Toll Road! Do we have assurance that there are funds available for major upgrades to the A127 in particular? I doubt it!!! It often takes me 15/20 minutes to get from the Tesco roundabout in Langdon Hills onto the A127! During term time, the A128 is not an option as this is also regularly at a standstill! 4. I understand that there is a history of flooding in the area where these houses are proposed. How is building more houses going to prevent this? It is something which must be a consideration. 5. Trains from Laindon Station has been cut in recent years and it is almost impossible to get a seat to travel to London during the rush hour when boarding at Laindon. The increase in housing can only be detrimental to the rail network in terms of its inability to carry even more passengers when it is virtually unable to cope at present. 6. Coupled with (5) above, where do commuters park? There is no more land around Laindon Station and there is already a lot of disquiet from residents in the local area regarding parking in residential streets. This will not improve with more houses being built and will also, I am sure, impact West Horndon station and car parking. 7. When trying to make a routine appointment at my local GP surgery, I am almost inevitably met with a suggestion of an appointment in three or four weeks time. More housing will add to the numbers on the lists of Doctors and Dentists in the area. These services are almost at breaking point now. How on earth do you think that building more houses is going to improve this situation or even keep it stable? 8. In line with (7) above, there will be increased demand on an already massively overstretched Basildon Hospital. It doesn't take much insight to realise that the people already living in the area are going to find it harder and harder to get hospital appointments, to park in the car park at the hospital and to access A&E in a reasonable time frame. something which is not even easy to do now. 9. Schools! An obvious one to bring up in opposition of your suggestions - the Langdon Hills area of Basildon has needed a new secondary school for 20 years now - we don't have one. The Primary Schools are over-stretched and building new homes will not help the problems that exist with school places in the area. Are there funds available for the provision of more schools/places within the area? 10. The Greenbelt!!! Yes, those lovely fields and forests that we all moved into the area to be near. You are proposing a concrete village that is going to disrupt everything that people in the area hold dear. It is disgraceful that the greenbelt is even considered in any building planning. I also believe that there are protected species in the areas on which your proposals rely. I would hope that this is being taken into account. I am vehemently opposed to the building of new homes on the greenbelt. There are other places that these houses can be built without causing the disruption that your proposals suggest. This is purely a case of bad planning and little forethought, any easy option!

1: Any development in the West Horndon area must not be on the flood plain area's ie East Horndon Hall designated employment area.
2: New industrial estate near M25 junction has only road links no public transport to site. This junction is notorious for being jammed leaving the site stranded ,god forbid emergency services being unable to get to the site.
3: To Large a percentage of the plan is south of the A127 not nearly enough near new cross rail infrastructure.
4:Dunton garden suburb can only work if it does not rely only on the A127 as this road is at full capacity now. Public transport link essential other than road.

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

I object to these proposals because....'

1. The proposed number of new houses will produce something like 8,00 vehicles. Each vehicle in turn (unless electric which most won't be) will produce Noxious Gases in an area that has been proven to exceeded the safe limits for Noxious Gases along the A127. This in turn will vastly negatively impact health to local residents.

2. The major road network is already at gridlock in the rush hours at both ends of the day. The infrastructure cannot sustain so many additional vehicle movements and I seriously doubt the necessary funds will be made available to provide road upgrades either via CIL or other funding mechanisms.

3. In conjunction with both 1 and 2 above, and relating to the existing traffic congestion and Noxious Gases, the Government has suggested the A127 become a Toll Road. Motorists are consistently treated as a cash cow, and the development would be completely out of place with so much existing serious motoring issues.

4. The rail network include the C2C line which is under severe strain at present, will not be able to provide the level of service commuters require.

5. With regard to item 4 above the local station car parks will not be able to accommodate the cars used by the commuters, thereby increasing parking in local roads to an unstainable level.

6. The amount of rain run off emptying into The Mardyke will produce more flooding, in an area that has a history of flooding.

7. Every year Basildon Hospital is shown to be incapable of achieving the Government targets, with many days classified as RED and BLACK days. Patients are queued outside A&E in ambulances as A&E is overrun with patients. With the increase in population from this development Basildon Hospital will massively fail to provide the level of service residents and the Government require.

8. Local Doctor Surgeries which are under constant pressure at pressure at present will not be able to accommodate the vast increase in patient numbers.

9. Finally I believe it is reprehensible to build homes on the Greenbelt. The proposed area has been shown to be rich in bio diversity with several protected species. This development would totally trash this virgin land and their habitat.

I object to these proposals because....'

1. The proposed number of new houses will produce something like 8,00 vehicles. Each vehicle in turn (unless electric which most won't be) will produce Noxious Gases in an area that has been proven to exceeded the safe limits for Noxious Gases along the A127. This in turn will vastly negatively impact health to local residents.

2. The major road network is already at gridlock in the rush hours at both ends of the day. The infrastructure cannot sustain so many additional vehicle movements and I seriously doubt the necessary funds will be made available to provide road upgrades either via CIL or other funding mechanisms.

3. In conjunction with both 1 and 2 above, and relating to the existing traffic congestion and Noxious Gases, the Government has suggested the A127 become a Toll Road. Motorists are consistently treated as a cash cow, and the development would be completely out of place with so much existing serious motoring issues.

4. The rail network include the C2C line which is under severe strain at present, will not be able to provide the level of service commuters require.

5. With regard to item 4 above the local station car parks will not be able to accommodate the cars used by the commuters, thereby increasing parking in local roads to an unstainable level.

6. The amount of rain run off emptying into The Mardyke will produce more flooding, in an area that has a history of flooding.

7. Every year Basildon Hospital is shown to be incapable of achieving the Government targets, with many days classified as RED and BLACK days. Patients are queued outside A&E in ambulances as A&E is overrun with patients. With the increase in population from this development Basildon Hospital will massively fail to provide the level of service residents and the Government require.

8. Local Doctor Surgeries which are under constant pressure at pressure at present will not be able to accommodate the vast increase in patient numbers.

9. Finally I believe it is reprehensible to build homes on the Greenbelt. The proposed area has been shown to be rich in bio diversity with several protected species. This development would totally trash this virgin land and their habitat.

I object to these proposals because....'

1. The proposed number of new houses will produce something like 8,00 vehicles. Each vehicle in turn (unless electric which most won't be) will produce Noxious Gases in an area that has been proven to exceeded the safe limits for Noxious Gases along the A127. This in turn will vastly negatively impact health to local residents.

2. The major road network is already at gridlock in the rush hours at both ends of the day. The infrastructure cannot sustain so many additional vehicle movements and I seriously doubt the necessary funds will be made available to provide road upgrades either via CIL or other funding mechanisms.

3. In conjunction with both 1 and 2 above, and relating to the existing traffic congestion and Noxious Gases, the Government has suggested the A127 become a Toll Road. Motorists are consistently treated as a cash cow, and the development would be completely out of place with so much existing serious motoring issues.

4. The rail network include the C2C line which is under severe strain at present, will not be able to provide the level of service commuters require.

5. With regard to item 4 above the local station car parks will not be able to accommodate the cars used by the commuters, thereby increasing parking in local roads to an unstainable level.

6. The amount of rain run off emptying into The Mardyke will produce more flooding, in an area that has a history of flooding.

7. Every year Basildon Hospital is shown to be incapable of achieving the Government targets, with many days classified as RED and BLACK days. Patients are queued outside A&E in ambulances as A&E is overrun with patients. With the increase in population from this development Basildon Hospital will massively fail to provide the level of service residents and the Government require.

8. Local Doctor Surgeries which are under constant pressure at pressure at present will not be able to accommodate the vast increase in patient numbers.

9. Finally I believe it is reprehensible to build homes on the Greenbelt. The proposed area has been shown to be rich in bio diversity with several protected species. This development would totally trash this virgin land and their habitat.