See Attached

London Development Plan 2015 - 2030
Proposed development at West Horndon

I cannot believe that we are sitting here in 2013 discussing a proposal for the building of 1500 new homes in the village, when in 2010 a proposal for a smaller development was rejected. This is a small village which has reached its maximum capacity for additional development. West Horndon has seen flooding only last year as a result of heavy rainfall; a potential development of Green Belt land to the west of Thorndon Avenue will exacerbate this flooding or ship the water to the other areas. I understand that Government policy of maintaining Metropolitan Green Belt land will be breached. Additionally the area in designated by the Environmental Agency as being at risk of flooding; the Government's policy is not to allow building in flood areas, so again guidelines are being ignored. Not to mention the loss of diverse amount of wildlife that I observe in the field to the rear of my property.

Having spoken to the planners I understand that this area was chosen for expansion because of the railway station and the network of trunk roads in the area. With regards to the station it has limited additional capacity and does not link directly with local areas such as Brentwood, it is merely a commuter line into Fenchurch Street Station which is limited to four platforms. I feel insufficient consideration has been given to the accumulative effect of other developments along this route for Fenchurch Street Station to handle this increase of commuters.

The road systems would not be able to able to cope with additional traffic including the small country lanes. A traveler's site is also being proposed for the village this is on top of the fact that West Horndon is being asked to take up to 43% of the development for the Borough which is showing an imbalance in your development plan.

These proposals will overwhelm and destroy our village with potentially just 3 people per household would result in an increase of 4500 people when we currently have less than 1900 people.

Having regard to the above I object most strongly to the proposed development in West Horndon. I believe much greater consideration should be given to relocating your plans to Hutton Industrial Estate, which is a large are already accustomed to the weight of traffic and infrastructure needed to support such a vast building scheme. It is also near a station and has good road networks around it. I believe that much of Hutton Industrial Estate is not in use and in much needed renovation.

See Attachment

See attached

1.The spatial strategy is not founded on an 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence' base and is therefore fundamentally flawed, failing to accord with the NPPF (paragraph 158). The Plan adopts an arbitrary approach to residential development by restricting development in the Green Belt rather than positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the Borough. There is no comprehensive justification for failing to meet objectively assessed needs.
2.Despite identifying that the Borough cannot meet its own housing needs, the Council has failed to seek to meet those needs by cooperating with neighbouring authorities, summarised as follows:
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy which does not seek to accommodate its full housing need.
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's approach of looking to neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need.
*The City Council raises concerns regarding the deliverability of sites, such as the strategic allocations in West Horndon, identified for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
*The City Council objects to the Preferred Options Local Plan being published for public consultation prior to key relevant evidence base documents being made available.

Proposed Changes to the Plan: Policy S1: Spatial Strategy should be amended to change the word 'redevelopment' in the first paragraph to 'development'. The final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"Amendments shall be made to the Green Belt to enable the following development:
i. Strategic Allocation at West Horndon;
ii. Allocation at land east of Bayleys Mead; and
iii. Existing developed sites in the Green Belt."

3. The Key Diagram ( figure 2.10) should be amended to show housing sites and the release of Green Belt land in accordance with representations and policies S1 and S2.

020 & 021 Sites could have houses, health and communities facilities built. At East Horndon (A127) the night club site could have houses. The village is low lying. Flooding occurs across the farmers fields to Cadogan Avenue, Station Road, Thorndon Avenue and to the Church.

Railway: The trains are already full in the rush hour - only two trains stop per hour
Buses: More buses would be needed, only 3 travel to Brentwood at present but they immediately come back to West Horndon.

The Metropolitan Green Belt lung should remain.
There should be no building on farmers fields - we need to grow more food.

No Gipsies.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Thank you for inviting the Highways Agency (HA) to contribute to the Brentwood Local Plan 2015-30 Preferred Options Consultation.

The HA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. In the case of Brentwood we would be concerned with any development that could have an impact on the M25 junctions 28 and 29 and the A12.

The emphasis on the promotion of sustainable transport to reduce the reliance on the car is very much welcomed by the HA and this is an essential part of the Borough's plan moving forward.

It is recognised that the evidence base for understanding the traffic impact of the development proposals is still being developed and the outcomes and results of the traffic modelling will be forthcoming. Whilst having no comment at this stage on the site allocations and the plan in general the HA would expect to see the results of the modelling in order to fully understand any impact on the SRN and any potential mitigation that may be required to facilitate further development within the Borough in the future.

The HA look forward to viewing the further evidence base and the Infrastructure Delivery Planand welcome ongoing consultation to understand the impact on the SRN through the ongoing development of the Borough's Local Plan.

I hope the above comments are useful at this stage.

See attached

See Attached

See attached

With regard to the Local Development Planning and any proposed development in Blackmore Essex, we feel as residents in Woollard Way, any development on the Green Belt field would severely alter Blackmore Village status, the very reason we chose to live here.

If there is a demand for affordable housing, could some homes be built as infill building, and use Brownfield sites as a preferred option. As the village is a rural location we would like to see this remain that way. We understand the possible need for some building, but would expect this to reflect the rural surroundings and be small scale, whilst enabling the Green Belt land to remain protected.

I object to the proposed plans and am astounded that such a small village would be made in a large town and lose all its character & charm for the many residents already living here. I moved from a town to live in West Horndon! The amenities of schools, transport and shops would have to be greatly improved to cope with such demand and as there is not currently a great broadband network for the town which would also further suffer by more new demand. Much of the land is a flood risk and not suitable for such extensive construction especially on any Green Belt land!
I'm extremely concerned about the train line as trains are already full during rush hour when arrive into West Horndon station and further increased numbers would swamp the service as there are already people from 3 other villages using our station to commute to London.
I see no benefits in bringing the planned proposals to West Horndon and would only agree to a small number of new houses in the village on the industrial site as there are other more suited locations.

See attached

See attached

See Attached

I appreciate and accept that nothing stays the same forever, and that some development to West Horndon could improve our facilities and enhance the look of the village. By removing the Industrial Parks it is possible to achieve this. However, I do not feel that the Council has fully investigated the implications and practicalities of this development and therefore the information provided is sketchy and conflicting. There is not enough evidence to confirm that thorough investigations have been made and findings published to make a balanced and constructed decision.

Currently the people employed on the Industrial Estate have bus and train services to get them to work. The new site provides neither of these and the Council do not appear to have considered this and the possibility that employment will be lost.

With respect to the development of the green belt land to the north of the Industrial sites and the alternative suggestion that the Council could develop land in Station Road towards the A128 I strongly object. The demand for housing in West Horndon would be more than adequately provided on the Industrial Areas. The Green Belt should be protected and remain intact for the reasons it was initially put in place- to prevent urban sprawl.

As an alternative development area, would it not be appropriate for the Council to research the land on the A127, currently Timmermans Nurseries, which is up for sale?

Most people who live in West Horndon do so because they enjoy the small village community and a semi-rural location. The proposed plans to more than treble the size of the village remove all of these aspects and alter a village to a small town. The Village already has issues with flooding, water / sewage and other utilities, education, health and internet to name but a few. This is with a population of less than 1900. In addition, the Council do not appear to have considered the daily traffic volumes and the impact on the A127 and A128 which struggles to meet current demands. The existing infrastructure could not cope with the increase but the Council do not appear to have assessed this.

The outline proposed does not give sufficient information to make a decision and needs to clarify on research and evidence to support its recommendations. No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife and bio-diversity issues.

Finally I currently object to the Traveller Site being located within the village as no definite proposal seems to have been identified and it is left to speculation. West Horndon Village attracts families and focuses on a close knit community. It is suggested that the Travellers will not be families and therefore I do not feel they will fit in with our community. In view of recent events, with national news coverage, at Dale Farm, Buckles Lane Ockendon and another area in Brentwood I do not believe our small community could cope. We have little crime at present which is evidenced that we only have a visiting police presence.

At the local meeting in Mountnessing with the community there was talk of development in Mountnessing and rural areas, along with the majority of the residents we are concerned about the many aspects of this. Historically BBC planning could not comment on previous bad planned builds within the area which restrict emergency services. I would hope that BBC planning would listen to the residents and work with the community to make our village safe and to save the greenbelt which we all treasure. Homeowners in the green belt in general have paid a premium to purchase their properties for the pleasure of country life, peace and freedom and our Council should respect this when considering planning applications.

I have lived in West Horndon, with my husband and two sons, for 22 years. I am appalled by the details of the proposed new housing development in the area. The development of 1500 houses would not only spoil the character of the village but would also destroy much-treasured greenbelt unnecessarily. I can see no reason why West Horndon is been asked to carry the weight of this burden when other areas of Brentwood will be left untouched.

Building on this site, knowing it is a flood plain, would also be utterly reckless given the recent history of floods in the area. It has also been suggested that the area is supported by a strong road network but any resident would tell you of the gridlock which is experienced by road users on the A128 every morning.

I am taking this opportunity to plead with the planning policy team to reconsider before real and lasting damage is caused; this development will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the area.

The housing needs of the borough could easily be supported by a number of smaller, more sustainable developments on Brownfield sites, which are available within the borough.

See attached

See attached

I am writing to oppose against the Local Development Plan for West Horndon. My family and I moved to the village for exactly that reason, village life, I have been working on the Industrial Park in West Horndon for many years and fell in love with the charm and character that West Horndon village offers. I firmly believe the LDP will have a major impact on the village and its residents; it will ruin and cause much pressure to the village, residents, wildlife and surrounding services.

I think that building on Metropolitan Green Belt land is a dangerous move. Green Belt has always been in existence to provide safeguard to the surrounding countryside and neighbouring areas, especially the wildlife. West Horndon has many different species of wildlife in the surrounding fields and these should be protected and not destroyed for redevelopment of land.

I feel the proposal of changing the West Horndon Industrial Park into dwellings is not the right choice, by moving the industrial park will mean the local amenities i.e. shops, post office, cafe, pub will suffer as the Industrial park brings in trade and therefore this will be a great loss to local providers. We should be encouraging employment growth to the industrial park not all businesses on the Industrial Park will benefit from relocation.


I do not agree that West Horndon is a suitable site for the size of the development that the LDP has planned, the proposal of 43% is quite a big chunk to locate into our village.

I do not think that enough careful consideration has been given to what impact it will have on the environment, surrounding area and amenities, i.e. Green Belt, flood risk, roads and junctions, schools and services G.P, buses and trains services to name but a few.

I hope the LDP plan is re-examined and that local resident's views are given full consideration, as we want to protect the village that we live in.

See Attached

I strongly object to the proposed plan to build 1500 homes in West Horndon This would treble the size of the village, changing the character of the whole area. This number represents some 43% of the total number in the Borough and why is the north of the borough not getting any??

My wife has sent an email expanding both of our views and I totally agree with what she has said.

I hope that you change your mind about putting so many new homes in West Horndon and changing the character for future generations.

People (like us) have chosen to live in a village location not a town and enjoy it the way it is

Following on from recent publications for the Local Development Plan 2015 to 2030, I would like the following considered: -

1. The East Ham Estate that is currently owned by Newham Council taken into local ownership by Brentwood Borough Council so as to help alleviate to local housing needs, and to have more local representation politically and financially in maintaining the estate.

2. Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane road drainage improved on the inside corner, so as to improve safety and cornering on this dangerous accident prone bend.

3. Speed ramps installed along Pondfield Lane and Hanging Hill Lane to reduce traffic speed going into the Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane corner to improve road safety.

4. The footpath bridge that goes over the Greater Anglia railway line at Princes Way to Priests Lane requires replacing. It is a bad state of repair, and requires urgent attention.

5. The following road bridges going over the Greater Anglia railway line require regular improved maintenance: -
a. Woodway
b. A128 Ingrave Road.
c. Warley Hill.

6. Increased cycle lane development using the private roads in the Hutton Mount Estate, which would give access of creating cycles from North to South and East to West in Brentwood, Shenfield and the surrounding area.

7. Pedestrian footpaths along the A128 improved in regular maintenance through Herongate, Brentwood, and to the North of Brentwood. Essex Highways do not allocate enough resources to this important public amenity.

8. Responsibility of all roads in the Brentwood Borough Council area taken into local ownership to improve maintenance, safety and appearance.

I am opposed to the Draft Plan to build 1500 new houses in West Horndon for a variety of reasons:

Firstly, the issue of flooding, I believe that no proper flood assessment has taken place despite the fact that The Environment Agency's web site shows West Horndon to be at risk of flooding. This was borne out on Christmas Day last year when a number of properties in the village were indeed flooded. I believe that building an extensive housing development on green belt land will reduce the capacity of this land to absorb excess water and so the risk of flooding will become greater. Although the provision of a flood alleviation scheme was mentioned, where do you propose to put the excess water? If it is pumped under the railway line surely it will just flood Bulphan instead. I doubt if it is legal to solve one's own flood management problems by transferring them to another authority, it most definitely isn't ethical.

Secondly, I am concerned that the local road and rail networks will be unable to cope with the increased demand. Our local main roads A127 & A128 are already overcrowded and St. Mary's Lane that links West Horndon to Upminster is a twisty road with some dangerous blind bends that has claimed the life of some of our residents in the past, I dread to think what it would be like with even more traffic on it. During peak times our local trains are already overcrowded and I am not sure if the line has the capacity to increase provision. Bearing in mind that most residents will need to commute to work will put a great strain on the transport system, especially as I suspect much of this commuting will be by means of private cars due to infrequent trains and buses.

Thirdly, I am concerned that the proposal indicates that Green Belt Land will be built upon. If one area of Green Belt land is built upon this sets a precedent that any part of the green belt may be built upon opening up the real possibility of urban sprawl. I cannot believe this will create a healthy environment for anyone to live in.

Many of the residents actively chose to live in West Horndon as they appreciated a semi -rural, village location, this will be lost if 1500 houses are built as the size of the village will be trebled. What effect will this have on crime rates I wonder?
Whilst it is unreasonable to suggest that no new houses should be built in West Horndon a more modest amount (perhaps somewhere between 300-500 houses) may be much more acceptable, especially if it was a phased development over a number of years. I understand that there are other sites that could be developed within the borough that currently have not even been considered e.g. Hutton industrial estate. I do not doubt that Brentwood Council needs to find a substantial number of new homes but to build almost half of them in West Horndon seems unfair.

In conclusion it seems to me that residents are asked to comment on a major proposal without being given the full facts. Have the risks to West Horndon really been fully evaluated and how might problems be overcome? Until such time that proper assessments have been made and viable, sustainable plans have been made to overcome the difficulties made by such a building development I will remain opposed to such a scheme.

I'm writing to express my deep concerns over the Council's Local Development Plan which has identified West Horndon as an area for 'significant growth'. West Horndon is a small village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself; the Ward has no more than 701 homes. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and completely change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment.

The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the LDP's plans being a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station but the station platform has already been extended and C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, and no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use. The trains are already busy leaving West Horndon at rush hour. The station has only 1 platform going into London. With so many new people to the village and quite probably using the trains, the safety of passengers piling onto one platform for trains that run at best, every 15 minutes would be questionable.

The LDP also talks about the aim to increase employment within Brentwood and once someone steps on the West Horndon line they immediately leave the borough and take their money and income elsewhere. We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly from West Horndon and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen this road any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only exacerbate the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. It can sometimes take 30-45 minutes to reach Brentwood and with such a poor bus service connecting us to Brentwood many residents shop elsewhere or travel by train to other towns and again leave the borough. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

Our secondary school children have no choice but to attend schools across Brentwood, by increasing the number of houses in this village you are asking secondary schools to increase their intake or find places for our children in locations beyond reasonable travelling distances. They have to travel by bus through Ingrave at the moment and more children will only increase the already heavy traffic through this area.

The local Primary school is already at full capacity and many of the families in the village moved to the village in order to give their children a more family centred schooling experience. Almost all of the children walk to school and there are very strong links between the families and accountability between them and the school. It is the reason most of our family have moved to the village. Trebling the size of the village would most definitely destroy this level of accountability. This is the character of West Horndon and I fear this level of development would ruin this.

Infrastructure will not be in place before the build starts and the LDP does not make it clear how this will appear or what will be provided. For the local Primary school this means having no choice but to take new children that move into the area before any funds and infrastructure can be put into place to expand it. There is a risk current families in the village will therefore not be able to get their children a place at the local school if they happen to live further from the school than the new houses. How is this fair? Without the sale of houses and a clearer picture of numbers of children it will be impossible for the council to clearly see what level of development the school will need. This will impact upon the education of our own children because class sizes will increase and teaching space will be reduced. Teachers will have no choice but to divide their attention between more children and this will inevitably affect the quality of teaching our children receive. No guarantees have been made to protect this or the future children who the school are forced to take because other local schools cannot accommodate them. Or families will have to travel to other local schools, which defeats the idea that most if not all the children walk to school and will only increase the level of traffic through Station Road.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctors appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood, a long journey during rush hour or roadworks particularly if it is an emergency. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? By trebling the size of the village the doctors surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increase of these numbers. No plans have been made available to show how this will improve. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is frankly unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 and A128 are already inadequate to deal with more traffic, which 1500 would certainly provide. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen the road. With 1500 homes being built in the village I seriously worry about the possibility of increased accidents and increased pollution and damage to the environment caused by more cars sitting in traffic jams on these already busy roads.

I am also very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. The fields above this area act as a soak for the waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which in itself has recently with heavy rain flooded many times (Removing the threat of flooding for many residents east of these field). Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The NPPF makes it very clear that no development should in any way impact upon other areas, which it most surely would. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. The Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land extending 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents backing onto these areas. Many residents including my parents who moved in this year in June are finding it extremely difficult to get buildings insurance because of existing flood risks and 1500 homes would most definitely increase this risk and I can't see how any of the new houses on the Greenbelt fields will get buildings insurance with the knowledge of existing flood risks. How can you responsibly build homes to sell knowing that insurance companies will not provide needed insurance to get a mortgage? There is no evidence that the council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be significant and it does seem ridiculously unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and no other. Why has a small village being allocated almost half of the total number of houses required in the Borough? Why has Ingatestone not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon that also runs into London? Both Brentwood town and Shenfield are getting 1000 homes and Ingatestone receives 130 homes and that's it?! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that as they have a station that they also receive a fair share of the allocation of houses. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land, however recent clarifications have made it clear that housing demand is unlikely to constitute justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I would like to see the Timmermans nursery on the A127 considered as an alternative site. Land which is Greenbelt, but already being used for another purpose. Why is the Hutton Industrial Estate not being put forward as a Brownfield site suitable for development, much like West Horndon Industrial Estate it has some privately owned areas and others that are not. Hutton Industrial Estate much like our own Industrial Estate also runs through compact residential areas and sees large trucks travelling by residents homes, which I'm sure they see as an annoyance. This would seriously impact upon the need to redevelop Greenbelt areas.

I am also deeply concerned about the lack of communication with residents over this period and the simple suggestion that this plan has incorporated residents' views. From when? I am not aware of 1 resident who was in any way fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LDP statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback!

The construction of such a huge number of houses on the edge of our village will destroy its open setting and rural character. The qualities that so many of the residents love about our village will be obliterated. We moved to West Horndon to live in a village, surrounded by open countryside. Your plan apprears to have fundamental shortcomings and goes against so many points noted in national guidance and the planning framework.

As my 8 year old son asked yesterday, 'Why would they want to build so many houses in a nice little village?'.