The inclusion of a policy is supported.

Need of 44 pitches to 2030 is not enough. I would estimate a need of this level to meet immediate need. At the very least the Council could and should have made its own assessment based on existing sites in the borough to inform policy until the a more uptodate county wide assessment is completed.

Criteria are well thought out.

Support identification of possible sites but explanation is needed as to why these have been chosen and not others. We are not told where this explanation is and how site selection is justified when compared with other reasonable alternatives.

Would be helpful to provide maps to show where the sites are so that informed opinions can be made. Are these all Green Belt sites?

20 pitches is not enough to meet immediate need. It is unclear where families currently living on other sites not included in the list are expected to live.

Policy is not PPTS compliant as it is not based on robust need assessment and fails to identify enough sites to meet existing need.

Support inclusion within mixed development at West Horndon or indeed elsewhere but this is not an immediate solution and it is unclear if site could be delivered independent of CP4

Policy must be PPTS/ NPPF compliant

DM28 fails to identify enough sites to meet current need - it is not PPTS compliant.

Persistent underdelivery of sites in Brentwood justifies need for buffer provision of at least need plus 20% and greater certainty combined with flexibilty to ensure site provision and choice and options.

There are a number of important points to commend DM28. First there is a clear recognition of the duty to provide. Second there has been, even in advance of the new GTAA by ORS, a recognition of the need to allow for natural increase in need. Third there is recognition in principle to include growth in provision for Gypsies/Travellers in general plans for expansion of building development. Our comments, therefore, for the first time in the history of the Support Group, are on details of numbers and locations, not on matters of principle. This is very welcome.
Immediate Provision
We believe that, if we accept the Council's classification of Rye Etch as a "new" site, then the initial provision through grant of full permanent planning permission to existing sites lacking full permission, should be for 36 additional pitches immediately. Saying that, we add the caveat that those pitches will vary somewhat in size, some accommodating normally only a single caravan, others, where more than two generations are present, 4-5 caravans, with outbuildings. Some pitches are twice the size of others, but almost all are larger than the average on council-owned site in England and Wales, and our members are not seeking to become more crowded. Numbers on pitches will have to be governed by individual negotiations. But if we define a pitch as a yard accommodating a family grouping living together and regularly sharing meals and family expenses, then the immediate need is for full planning permission to be given for 36 pitches, 33 of which can and should be met through grant of planning permission to existing Gypsy/Traveller landowners, and 3 to a family on land owned by the Church Commissioners. This is in addition to other land occupied by Gypsies/Travellers which already has full planning permission. We list them below:
A. Existing longstanding site newly added to the list of "New" provision.
Rye Etch, Mill Lane, Navestock: 3 pitches. Mr Walter Taylor, with various of his family, has lived, apart from summer travelling, on this land with the consent of the landowner, for more than 50 years, and has enjoyed planning permission for more than two decades. The family were mildly famous in Brentwood because they were for years the only Gypsy family ever knowingly to be given planning permission by Brentwood Council without going to appeal. (This occurred because of the pressure brought by the Church Commissioners after a tenant farmer tried unilaterally to evict them in 1989.) We had supposed that the family had permanent planning permission, and this was why they were not included in previous lists; now we are enquiring whether 7 consecutive planning renewals is a national record for 3-year temporary planning permission! Less amusing is that the fact that the family were only able to get electricity two years ago, and still do not have running water. The family have never had professional legal or planning advice, but have relied on the benevolence of advice from officials from Essex County Council and Brentwood Council. Brentwood Gypsy Support Group fully supports the belated proposal of Brentwood District Council that this family should get full planning permission, and suggests that arranging mains water supply be a matter of urgency. We do think that the recognition of this site should be in addition to sites previously listed for regularisation by Brentwood Council, and figures in previous GTAAs, not instead of them.

B. Sites proposed by the Council, and brought forward from previous lists:
Roman Triangle, Roman Road, Mountnessing: The council proposes 4 pitches, but there are in fact 5 on the site, which was acknowledged in previous council lists. The Brentwood Gypsy Support Group supports the provision of 5 pitches.
Brentwood Gypsy Support Groups supports the following proposals in the Draft Local Plan, as they stand.
Deep Dell Park, Ingatestone 7 pitches
Hope Farm, Horsemanside, 3 pitches
Tree Tops, Curtis Mill Lane, 3 pitches. With regard to Tree Tops, we'd just note that, as on Roman Triangle and Chelmsford Road, Blackmore, there are residents on this site who are great-grandparents, underlining the need recognised by DM 28 of forward thinking in longterm provision.


C. Sites Considered by the Council in previous lists, but omitted from this list
Lizvale Farm, Goatswood Lane/Church Road 4 pitches
Orchard View, Horsemanside 4 pitches
Beads Hall Lane, Pilgrims Hatch 1 pitch
We do not consider there are any material difference between the situation of these families and the familes whose sites are included on the list, or between now and when they were considered for permanent permission by the Council.
We would also like to add that we particularly deplore the vicious and highly personal opposition to and petition against the owner of Cottage Gardens, Beads Hall Lane, which developed only some years after his occupation of the site when his Romani ethnicity was publicly revealed. We consider it very unfortunate that this site should have been dropped from the list of those recommended after this campaign. We urge the council to make it clear to members of the public that stalking planning applicants, and damaging their property is unacceptable behaviour, and we urge that they should urge the police and fire-service to be more pro-active in the investigation of the burning down of the mobile home on this site.
D. Site consistently opposed by the Council
Chelmsford Road, Blackmore, 6 pitches.
This is a case where Brentwood Council has consistently urged that there is an unacceptable use of Green Belt Land. We are unable to accept that this is a sincere objection, since prior to the purchase and occupation of the site by the present owners, the council knowingly tolerated occupation of the land by non-Gypsy caravan-dwellers for a number of years, and only began its enforcement action after Gypsy-owned caravans were moved on. The site - like its nearest neighbour, also only won on appeal supported by the Gypsy Support Group - is on the semi-developed margins of a village like most of the Gypsy sites in the district. Over nearly five years, local opposition has all but disappeared, and the families have integrated well into a village which has always had a sizeable Romani population and presence in its school. The failure to include this site on the list of those recommended has to do not with unacceptable use of the green belt but unacceptable ethnic discrimination.
Forward Provision to 2030
We suggest allowance for forward provision between 2015 and 2030 of some 25-35 pitches, which is not so dissimilar to that proposed by the Council of 24 pitches. We suggest that this number not be too precise, to allow for a flexible market, and to allow for individuals of a nomadic habit of life to move more freely between houses and caravans, and for mixed habitats of high design quality to emerge, as indeed they are already beginning to among wealthier Gypsies/Travellers. The East of England Plan figures will probably prove to be an underestimate, as the growing willingness of Gypsies/Travellers to be open about their identity, and the growing acceptance and even welcome for this from the rest of the community leads to more private site building being achievable. We realise that our figures will be tested by the Essex-wide needs assessment being carried out by ORS, but we would question an assessment which suggested a need by 2030 of much less than 70-75 pitches, or more if allowance is made for families moving to the area.
We welcome the idea of suggesting broad locations in development areas for the location of such sites, and we agree with the Draft Local Plan that 14 additional pitches could be found in additional development at West Horndon. We think indeed that the broad locations for future locations might also include among other possible housing sites identified in the local plan, No. 13 the Council Depot in Warley, No 20, the Sow and Grow Nursery in Pilgrims Hatch, and No.21, the Ingatestone Garden Centre, and possibly others. We think that the broad locations should be more than the actual need, to allow for market flexibility and choice, and we would emphasise that we are NOT suggesting large sites in all these places, but rather a scatter of small family sites, as potential developers, whether private, or social, come forwards over the years.
We would emphasise, indeed, we think it would be unlikely to be a good thing to have 14 pitches all on the same site, especially if that was a council-owned site. There is considerable diversity among the Gypsy/Traveller population in Brentwood, which has three different community languages, English-Romani, Irish Traveller Cant and Scottish Traveller Cant, and different religious affiliations. Good relations are increasing and promoted by the Brentwood Gypsy Support group as is inter-community marriage, and the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group particularly defends the position that marriage between people of different communities does not threaten anybody's identity, but rather enriches us all. Nonetheless, to be neighbours on a caravan site is a more intimate relation than being neighbours in a street of houses, and the preference of all our members is for small family sites rather than large sites.
The great majority of our members are owner-occupiers and want to stay that way. Only one family would themselves consider being council or social landlord tenants, and that not in West Horndon, because their children attend school elsewhere. But most recognise that there may be a need for social provision of accommodation for others less fortunate than themselves, and do not oppose it. Most wish to keep their grown-up married children close by; but recognise that is not always the wish of those grown-up children themselves and that rentable pitches may add flexibility and freedom of choice. We are all agreed, however, that it would be the most foolish and counter-productive waste of public money to force onto a council site people who are eager and willing to provide for themselves on their own land. The cost would be not only the appalling social cost and spectacle of Dale Farm style evictions, but also the ongoing cost of municipal site provision, which is also greater if the tenants are resentful. The Local Plan should identify broad locations and leave open the question of who will develop and at which precise locations.
Conclusion
Overall, despite our criticisms, which relate more to past failings than present attitudes, we do regard this draft local plan as a great step forwards in integrated planning practice. With the appropriate tweaking it could come to be seen as a major triumph for localism and an active community. We look forward to a day when some of our local sites have not actually disappeared into anonymity, but are held up as exemplars of sustainable design, enhancing the environment, and photographs appear of them in architectural journals and Country Life. If the families, architects, developers and planners work together, this could happen. Brentwood's Gypsy/Traveller families are beginning to dare to have dreams and aspirations unimaginable a generation ago. This local plan could set all our dreams and aspirations free.

West Horndon does not have a secondary school,regular buses or many shops. There is no content to see how the introduction of gypsy and traveler sites in addition to the proposed 1500 houses is planned. The sites in question are on a flood plain and I cannot see any justification for the need to be near the railway station. This may give rise to increase in unsocial able behavior and make residents feel unsafe as there is no local police station within a reasonable distance

I accept we need more homes but object to them being in one area. Brown field sites should be used first.

Green belt should be preserved for future generations, once we start building on the green belt land it will not stop.
West Horndon has not got enough infrastructure to cope with the proposed amount of houses. The trains along the C2C service are already running at full capacity and have no plans to upgrade.

The sewage will be a major problem. The additional surface water will create added problems.

I strongly object to the travelers site, they put nothing into the system and will just degrade the area.

I accept we need more homes but object to them being in one area. Brown field sites should be used first.

Green belt should be preserved for future generations, once we start building on the green belt land it will not stop.
West Horndon has not got enough infrastructure to cope with the proposed amount of houses. The trains along the C2C service are already running at full capacity and have no plans to upgrade.

The sewage will be a major problem. The additional surface water will create added problems.

I strongly object to the travelers site, they put nothing into the system and will just degrade the area.

I strongly object to building on green belt especially metropolitan green belt. Understand there needs to be some houses built no NOT 1500.

Once you start building on these areas it will be one long continuous town, who will stop Thurrock building the other side.

Concerned about the primary school, it will not cope and will need to be shut down - where will those children go to school? How will those parents get them to those schools?

The secondary school is also a worry, the school bus going to County High will not cope and children will need to compete for the spaces that are limited in this school.

Flooding - as I have been flooded ourselves badly at 20 freshwell gardens I object to the increase in surface water. Some of the roads flooded last christmas and we have had problems with sewage.

The trains are already running to full capacity with no plans to upgrade, this will not only put train prices up but there will also be no room. Already you are lucky to have a seat when the train arrives at West Horndon travelling to London.

The local businesses that will need to be moved from the Industrial Site will suffer trading and need to be compensated.

Local traffic is already a problem. During rush hour the roads are congested, we do not need extra traffic moving in and out of the village.

I object to the traveler sites. I do not understand why we have to be a dumping ground for them when they bring nothing to society. We pride ourselves in West Horndon with a low crime rate, and this will definitely increase and bring the value of our houses down.

The doctors surgery will not be able to cope, it is already difficult getting an appointment.

I strongly object to the development plans.
Metropolitan green belt land needs to be protected if you start allowing building, it will open the flood gates for other councils to build on the sites. You need to protect the area around London.

Building should take place around Shenfield areas where they have more infrastructure. The village already suffers from major congestion, the rush hour is chaos.

The primary school will not be able to cope. The traveler sites need to be so many miles away from schools, infrastructure but do they even use them. NO. How will the school be able to handle the increase in numbers when it is already full.
The school will need to be closed and rebuilt - where will those children go to school? How will their parents get them to those schools?

It is already hard for children to get into brentwood schools. This will increase numbers of children trying to get into brentwood county high school and the school bus. There will be no room for extra children on the bus.

The travelers will bring rubbish, crime and do not clean up after themselves. They should have to pay to live on these sites and that money can be used to clean up after them and feed back into West Horndon. The travelers will be from Basildon area that were evicted recently. Look at the problems they bought with them. Why should we have to accommodate them here in West Horndon.

This will have an effect on the house prices. They will decrease, this is unfair on people that have worked hard to be able to buy a house here. West Horndon is a safe place, you increase the population, the crime will increase.

Flooding is already an issue in West Horndon, more houses means more flooding.

We have a limited number of buses that come to the village, this will not improve.

The trains are full already, there are no plans for C2c to upgrade the service. Train prices will increase, no seats, no room to board train. This will have an effect on all other train stops.

We need better roads if this is to go ahead. This should not be paid for by the tax payer. These changes need to be made before development begins.

The metropolitan green belt land is there to protect thurrock, west horndon and London merging together. We need to protect the countryside.

This land is at risk of flooding we must have work done to ensure the flooding like last christmas does not happen again.

The plan to build 1500 properties in West Horndon is ludicrous. There are numerous reasons why - traffic congestion, schooling, sewage and drainage, to name a few. Whilst the plan to move the industrial site is extremely attractive there would be an I Mende detrimental impact on the village with the amount of extra persons and vehicles the housing development would generate. 1500 houses could amount to at least 3000 vehicles. There are only 2 routes into and out of the village. Traffic congestion is inevitable should the development go ahead. Whilst I totally appreciate the need to create more affordable homes in our area, the size of the project is not feasible. Maybe a vast reduction of the scale of the development needs to be considered. I do not have an objection to the industrial site being relocated as the lorries have caused a considerable nuisance in the 13 years I have lived in the village. I also do not have an objection to a reduced scale development of a few houses being built but the government needs to seriously consider if our village with its tiny school, restricted vehicular access and tendency to flood could really cope with any additional population at all. With regard to a travellers site I strongly object and will continue to fight it.

Whilst I recognise that the borough requires significant housing development, potentially in line in numbers with that identified within the Local Plan 2015-2030, I strongly object to the proposed concentration of new dwellings, over a sustained period of time, within the identified West Horndon Opportunity Area.

The construction of 200-250 new dwellings within West Horndon, every year, for 15 years, will firstly expand the town beyond recognition. Based on the current population size (which is broadly stable), the proposals would see it essentially triple in size. Whilst there are proposals for improved infrastructure, it is questionable whether this is truly sustainable within the land area proposed. The density of construction required will not be in-fitting with this beautiful countryside location, where houses are two stories tall at most, with a significant proportion of bungalows. High rise or even medium rise flats are not at all in-fitting with current town character.

Secondly, as our council, Brentwood Borough Council has the obligation to serve existing residents, not just new ones. Those who have made West Horndon their home will see a material depression in their house values as the 200-250 new dwellings come on to the market. There will be no compensation to the existing residents, which feels highly inequitable for such a small population.

Thirdly. Whilst the attractions of expanding at West Horndon are clear, one must question market demand for 200-250 new dwellings each year, in the same place, over 15 years. This demand is unproven, and highly questionable. Is it right that just under half of individuals looking to live in the entire Brentwood Borough, will want to all live in the same place? In a completely new development? It is worth highlighting on this point that the newer, small sized dwellings completed within West Horndon more recently have struggled to sell, particularly those allocated as "affordable housing" (development in question: 191 Thorndon Avenue). Simply finding one place to build nearly half of the dwellings required by the Borough does not mean people will decide to live in them - they need to be in varied locations reflecting local demand.

Lastly, your plans to allocate the bulk of all required traveller sites to West Horndon again looks highly inequitable. I would also question suitability - West Horndon has been flagged as a key area for expansion due to its location to rail links; in essence, this is land prime for development for commuters and local business workers. Travellers, with limited ties to one location, do not have these requirements and indeed it is not clear why the same land so prime for employment and fixed residential communities, also makes sense for a traveller community.

Hence in summary, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. West Horndon is a small village that whilst can accept a decent level of development, should not be targeted at such a level. It appears that it has been viewed as a fix for the entire borough, and indeed I fear that if these plans are bourn out you will end up with a bloated stock of houses in one location with limited demand vs. supply. The solution needs to provide housing where it is actually needed, and well balanced across the Borough. This proposal fails on both counts.

[see attached comment for further submission]

I am totally opposed to any building on Green Belt land. I understand that some building will take place in West Horndon and using the Industrial Estate for housing seems appropriate but the access routes will need to be very carefully planned. The current access opposite the station would be neither sensible or safe. 500 houses in this area is the maximum that should be built in West Horndon in order to retain it as a village. We do not wish to become a town. It is also totally inappropriate to put traveller sites in a village.

See attachment

See attached

See attached

In response to Brentwood Councils "Proposed Development" and West Horndon. I object most strongly to this proposal, which is poorly researched and ill conceived.

We are a small village and your plans are to develop a new settlement alongside us. The character of this VILLAGE will be lost. This VILLAGE has been chosen to take almost half of the allocation of Brentwood, with no explanation as to why.
National guidelines state "Local Planning Authorities" should access the quality and capacity of infrastructure i.e. utilities, telecommunications, water supply, energy, social care, education and health. This does not appear to have been done.

National planning policy framework states that planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of community, also that a wide section of the community should be proactively engaged. This has not been done, we have not been properly consulted on what the VILLAGE wants. Also every time I ask planning a question the answer us "WE DON'T KNOW". All Brentwood Council are doing is imposing their decisions on us without any proper and meaningful consultation.
It appears that most of Brentwood's needs are being imposed on us with no regards for the residents on the environment. Maybe you should consult surrounding Boroughs to take up some of Brentwood's proposed housing.
The main part of the allocation of the proposed housing is on "Green Belt Land" and National Planning says Green Belt development by definition is inappropriate and harmful. Also the Government has said housing demand is unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances to justify housing demand. Can West Horndon be sustainable? Sustainable as defined as ensuring better lives for ourselves, does not mean worse lives for the future with over development.
WE are a small village with very limited amenities i.e hardly any shops, a satellite doctors surgery, where it is difficult to obtain an appointment, we have tried to change doctors only to be told that we have to travel to Baslidon (BY CAR) as we are the wrong side of the A127. The bus service here is limited and often unreliable. The railway station only caters for very limited journeys on already packed trains even at weekends. Jobs in West Horndon will be accessed easier by car with cars speeding through the village from elsewhere.

The new development would create more traffic for the established residents who would appear to gain nothing but the loss of our rural character. We also have to dice with death if we attempt to walk to the local county park, again for safety reasons we have to use our cars.

The A127 Grinds to a halt most mornings another 1,500+ new homes would make this road unbearable, to say nothing of the additional pollution. I have waited for 15 minutes to turn right from Station road onto the A128. This is clearly unacceptable. The M25 as everyone knows cannot cope now.
The village has flooded in the past and again on 25th December 2012, adding misery for the residents, taking away fields will aggravate this issue.

Finally construction of what is frankly a new town on open countryside will destroy this open setting and rural character. We have a wide variety of wildlife and birds including Sparrows which have already for most part disappeared from London because of over building and losing their habitat. Butterflies, Water volves, Great Created Newts etc, will also loose their habitats.

This village will gain nothing, all Brentwood Council is doing is imposing their bad proposals on u without any proper and meaningful consultation as to what the village wants. This will be resented by the resident's on this small community.
PS - Also you are planning a travelers site again when I have asked questions the answer is "Don't Know". Policing in West Horndon is virtually non existent. Bearing in mind the problems Brentwood Council have with some sites which have lead to SHOOTINGS at one. Is this wise? In fact on a recent occasion when a neighbour had an attempted burglary when she was at home. The police officers who eventually turned up told me that they had come from Harlow, and did not know this VILLAGE was here. I have asked if this would be a family site which do not appear to have as many problems as mixed sites again "You don't know" West Horndon is being targeted to bear the brunt of all your plans. Also numbers are being vague on number of pitches.

I ask a question who would want to buy a house there? I know I would NOT

Finally West Horndon is a very small area of Brentwood this site would be on our doorstep.

I am objecting to this draft Local Development Plan because:
a. The sites being considered should not be located on Green Belt agricultural land.
b. They do not provide access by public transport for shops, schools & healthcare.
c. Brentwood District Councils estimate of the traveler numbers in the Parish is too low.
d. The overwhelming view of the majority of the parishioners is that there are too many sites already.

In your forward to the Consultancy document you state:
S1. The Councils preferred special strategy for the Borough aims to protect the Green Belt and local character and foster sustainable communities. This certainly has not happened where West Horndon is concerned, but it is in keeping with the constant neglect in almost all departments shown to this village over the last 50 years.

The plan aims to ensure development happens in the right place, where it can do the most good and least harm (to whom) with good access to facilities, such as healthcare, (non existent) parks, schools, shops and public transport. The Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected and wherever possible enhanced (you are intending to turn this village into a Town AND DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY) In planning a New Town you need to have regard to the present villagers who all moved here because of its rural location and village atmosphere.

P.8. States that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
(A) Are accessible to public transport. We have two trains per hour, which are already overcrowded, and no further room for improvement, and three busses in the morning that turn around at Brentwood and come straight back. There is only one bus back in the afternoon and that is the school run. (B) Will have no significant impact on the green Belt. This will certainly have an enormous impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt that separates us and no one else from the London urban sprawl at West Horndon.

P.9. Reason for rejection states: Development in remote locations would undermine the rural character of the Borough and increase car dependency. No thought has been given to the requirements of this small village when it is planned to treble its size. The roads that are available to us are almost inaccessible in rush hour and indeed we are often used as a rat run when overcrowding or accidents take place.

Any reduction in the Industrial Site will cause a reduction in employment in the village and no thought has been given to this. Plus, the place that it is proposed to move the site to will be returned to green Belt when no longer required by its present clients, therefore will not be available for use by West Horndon industries.

Both pavements and roads are full of potholes, some seriously. What action is the County Council going to take to this problem? Nothing in the proposals contains any change to this status.

Significant change will have to be made to the drainage system for surface water which is not absorbed by the fields will flood the village, and any surplus will go through and flood Bulphan which is in itself a flood plane. The flood alleviation scheme has been grossly neglected over the past 30 years so what hope do we have that this will change.

The Borough has seen this village as an opportunity to protect the Brentwood area and we have been thrown to the wolves.

Any hint of Travellers being allowed into this village will be met with utmost resistance and when it gets known that this is a possibility then no one will buy property down here.

DM23 (18) - SUPPORT mixed housing development i.e. elderly and small family/first time buyers e.g. 2 bedroom with own parking spaces for elderly and others. Elderly may drive for some years, have visitors, Careers etc who need to access the elderly

DM23 (21) - OBJECT. Too large - too many dwellings, too many extra people for facilities in village e.g. parking, surgery, schools. Too far from station for pedestrians therefore more cars assessing and parking. Current cafe a very much appreciated facility by locals and visitors.

DM28 Deep Dell Park. OBJECT. Unless all there who buy a piece of Green Belt and need local facilities same as travelers can be treated the same. I have relatives who would like to move here to help, look after me, still one working in London, travelling daily and would love a house with a garden with views of countryside, same treatment?

We have nothing against present residents BUT everyone should be able to be assured of being treated and considered in the same way whatever their family history if they are law abiding citizens. What is good enough and accessible to one should be seen as good enough and accessible to all who can afford it and live as constructive law abiding citizens.

DM28:- Too many sites which will lead to rubbish creating further cost to the Council top clear. Also more crime will be brought into the areas as intimidation is usually suffered by locals. Why should the council be forced to pay rate payers' money to maintain too many sites (most of which are illegal).

Ref. 102:- It does not make any sense to deprive people of valuable car parking spaces. This would be another nail in the coffin of the High Street. People will drive to Lakeside etc. where parking is free anyway. The High Street at the moment appears to be doing reasonably well which what we all want to continue.

Our village is being destroyed by Gypsy and Traveler sites. We have to cope with rubbish on lanes, Sewage in ditches, the destruction of adjacent SSSI's, trespass, thieving and intimidation. The Council's plan will do nothing to stop this.

The following comments have been prepared in partnership with the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group, but are independent.

We welcome the recognition of continuing growth in need during the plan period, but the East of England Plan figures are almost certainly an underestimate of need. The reasons include the points recognised in their report by the Regional Strategy Panel, migration into the area, and the difficulty in assessing the need from housed Travellers, but also because numbers Gypsies and Travellers tend to not self identify because of prejudice, and because some lead are nomadic.

Based on the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group's knowledge of the local Gypsy community, there is an existing need from Travellers on unauthorised development or on temporary permissions for 36 pitches. Together with the existing 10 authorised pitches that suggests a current base need for 46 pitches.

If we then apply the 3% compound annual growth that underpinned the regional strategy and that the Council has used in their calculation it suggests a requirement for a further 30 pitches in the 17 years between 2013 and 2030, a total of 76. 30 pitches from household growth feels of the right scale, based on the needs of the children of the local Gypsy and Traveller community.

We would also advocate an additional allowance for needs from Travellers moving into the area, or from housing. A further 10 pitches would be a small addition, given Brentwood's proximity to London, and the huge difficulties there are in making additional provision within London. In total this would suggest a target for 86 pitches by 2030, a net increase in 76 permanent pitches.

This estimate will be tested by the Essex wide needs assessment being carried out by ORS. But based on our detailed knowledge of the local community, we would question an assessment which suggested a need much less than this.

Recognising that such projections are likely to under-count need, and to avoid the policy being used as a ceiling, we propose the 1st sentence of Policy DM28 should read: Provision should be made within the Borough to meet the need for at least 86 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches to 2030.

The provision needs to be front-loaded. If we assume the plan is adopted in 2015, at that point it would require a 5 year supply of deliverable sites ie covering needs to 2020. If we add in half the 10 pitches for housed Travellers / people moving into the area, at adoption in 2015 it would require the base requirement of 46 plus 11 plus 5 pitches, a total of at least 62.

We broadly welcome the criteria for judging planning applications. Compared with those promoted by some councils, they represent a reasonable list.

We would recommend that the sites identified in sections A, B, C and D of the Brentwood Support Group's submission should be allocated for Traveller needs. Roman road Triangle should be 5, not 4 pitches. Together they would provide 36 permanent pitches. The need for provision to be front-loaded gives added importance to existing sites. Unlike pitches provided within new development, they are deliverable now.

We welcome in principle the proposed 14 pitches at West Horndon, but would question a single site of that size. Generally smaller extended family sites work better, and are preferred by the Traveller community, so we would advocate perhaps 3 smaller sites of 5 pitches each.

To accommodate more of the needs we would want to see small Traveller sites incorporated as part of other major developments. Based on an initial appraisal we have identified three of the housing sites in the plan as large enough to include and suitable for Traveller needs. We suggest that those three, Housing sites 13 Council Depot, Warley, 20 Sow & Grow Nursery, Pilgrims Hatch, and 21, Ingatestone Garden Centre should each include a 5 pitch site.

The plan needs to be clear about these requirements. We suggest that the descriptions of these three developments and the West Hordon strategic allocation under Policy DM23 are amended to make this clear. A possible form of words would be: 13 Council Depot, the Drive Warley (081) - (137 dwellings [or an amended figure reflecting the inclusion of the Traveller site], and a 5 pitch Gypsy and Traveller site) etc.

Together these proposals would accommodate 66 pitches, leaving an additional minimum 10 to be identified. This should be done through this development plan process. Given the very strong policy presumption against Traveller sites in Green Belt, it would not be appropriate to leave a balance of sites to come forward through planning applications.

The Traveller community in Brentwood all own their own sites, and would want most of the new provision provided on a private basis. They also recognise that some families cannot afford sites and need to rent. We suggest that the 6 small sites we envisage as part of developments (West Horndon and housing sites 13, 20 & 21) should include 2 or 3 small public sites. This approach is consistent with Government policy, see the 5th bullet under paragraph 4 of Planning policy for traveller sites.

The following comments have been prepared in partnership with the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group, but are independent.

We welcome the recognition of continuing growth in need during the plan period, but the East of England Plan figures are almost certainly an underestimate of need. The reasons include the points recognised in their report by the Regional Strategy Panel, migration into the area, and the difficulty in assessing the need from housed Travellers, but also because numbers Gypsies and Travellers tend to not self identify because of prejudice, and because some lead are nomadic.

Based on the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group's knowledge of the local Gypsy community, there is an existing need from Travellers on unauthorised development or on temporary permissions for 36 pitches. Together with the existing 10 authorised pitches that suggests a current base need for 46 pitches.

If we then apply the 3% compound annual growth that underpinned the regional strategy and that the Council has used in their calculation it suggests a requirement for a further 30 pitches in the 17 years between 2013 and 2030, a total of 76. 30 pitches from household growth feels of the right scale, based on the needs of the children of the local Gypsy and Traveller community.

We would also advocate an additional allowance for needs from Travellers moving into the area, or from housing. A further 10 pitches would be a small addition, given Brentwood's proximity to London, and the huge difficulties there are in making additional provision within London. In total this would suggest a target for 86 pitches by 2030, a net increase in 76 permanent pitches.

This estimate will be tested by the Essex wide needs assessment being carried out by ORS. But based on our detailed knowledge of the local community, we would question an assessment which suggested a need much less than this.

Recognising that such projections are likely to under-count need, and to avoid the policy being used as a ceiling, we propose the 1st sentence of Policy DM28 should read: Provision should be made within the Borough to meet the need for at least 86 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches to 2030.

The provision needs to be front-loaded. If we assume the plan is adopted in 2015, at that point it would require a 5 year supply of deliverable sites ie covering needs to 2020. If we add in half the 10 pitches for housed Travellers / people moving into the area, at adoption in 2015 it would require the base requirement of 46 plus 11 plus 5 pitches, a total of at least 62.

We broadly welcome the criteria for judging planning applications. Compared with those promoted by some councils, they represent a reasonable list.

We would recommend that the sites identified in sections A, B, C and D of the Brentwood Support Group's submission should be allocated for Traveller needs. Roman road Triangle should be 5, not 4 pitches. Together they would provide 36 permanent pitches. The need for provision to be front-loaded gives added importance to existing sites. Unlike pitches provided within new development, they are deliverable now.

We welcome in principle the proposed 14 pitches at West Horndon, but would question a single site of that size. Generally smaller extended family sites work better, and are preferred by the Traveller community, so we would advocate perhaps 3 smaller sites of 5 pitches each.

To accommodate more of the needs we would want to see small Traveller sites incorporated as part of other major developments. Based on an initial appraisal we have identified three of the housing sites in the plan as large enough to include and suitable for Traveller needs. We suggest that those three, Housing sites 13 Council Depot, Warley, 20 Sow & Grow Nursery, Pilgrims Hatch, and 21, Ingatestone Garden Centre should each include a 5 pitch site.

The plan needs to be clear about these requirements. We suggest that the descriptions of these three developments and the West Hordon strategic allocation under Policy DM23 are amended to make this clear. A possible form of words would be: 13 Council Depot, the Drive Warley (081) - (137 dwellings [or an amended figure reflecting the inclusion of the Traveller site], and a 5 pitch Gypsy and Traveller site) etc.

Together these proposals would accommodate 66 pitches, leaving an additional minimum 10 to be identified. This should be done through this development plan process. Given the very strong policy presumption against Traveller sites in Green Belt, it would not be appropriate to leave a balance of sites to come forward through planning applications.

The Traveller community in Brentwood all own their own sites, and would want most of the new provision provided on a private basis. They also recognise that some families cannot afford sites and need to rent. We suggest that the 6 small sites we envisage as part of developments (West Horndon and housing sites 13, 20 & 21) should include 2 or 3 small public sites. This approach is consistent with Government policy, see the 5th bullet under paragraph 4 of Planning policy for traveller sites.

The following comments have been prepared in partnership with the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group, but are independent.

We welcome the recognition of continuing growth in need during the plan period, but the East of England Plan figures are almost certainly an underestimate of need. The reasons include the points recognised in their report by the Regional Strategy Panel, migration into the area, and the difficulty in assessing the need from housed Travellers, but also because numbers Gypsies and Travellers tend to not self identify because of prejudice, and because some lead are nomadic.

Based on the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group's knowledge of the local Gypsy community, there is an existing need from Travellers on unauthorised development or on temporary permissions for 36 pitches. Together with the existing 10 authorised pitches that suggests a current base need for 46 pitches.

If we then apply the 3% compound annual growth that underpinned the regional strategy and that the Council has used in their calculation it suggests a requirement for a further 30 pitches in the 17 years between 2013 and 2030, a total of 76. 30 pitches from household growth feels of the right scale, based on the needs of the children of the local Gypsy and Traveller community.

We would also advocate an additional allowance for needs from Travellers moving into the area, or from housing. A further 10 pitches would be a small addition, given Brentwood's proximity to London, and the huge difficulties there are in making additional provision within London. In total this would suggest a target for 86 pitches by 2030, a net increase in 76 permanent pitches.

This estimate will be tested by the Essex wide needs assessment being carried out by ORS. But based on our detailed knowledge of the local community, we would question an assessment which suggested a need much less than this.

Recognising that such projections are likely to under-count need, and to avoid the policy being used as a ceiling, we propose the 1st sentence of Policy DM28 should read: Provision should be made within the Borough to meet the need for at least 86 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches to 2030.

The provision needs to be front-loaded. If we assume the plan is adopted in 2015, at that point it would require a 5 year supply of deliverable sites ie covering needs to 2020. If we add in half the 10 pitches for housed Travellers / people moving into the area, at adoption in 2015 it would require the base requirement of 46 plus 11 plus 5 pitches, a total of at least 62.

We broadly welcome the criteria for judging planning applications. Compared with those promoted by some councils, they represent a reasonable list.

We would recommend that the sites identified in sections A, B, C and D of the Brentwood Support Group's submission should be allocated for Traveller needs. Roman road Triangle should be 5, not 4 pitches. Together they would provide 36 permanent pitches. The need for provision to be front-loaded gives added importance to existing sites. Unlike pitches provided within new development, they are deliverable now.

We welcome in principle the proposed 14 pitches at West Horndon, but would question a single site of that size. Generally smaller extended family sites work better, and are preferred by the Traveller community, so we would advocate perhaps 3 smaller sites of 5 pitches each.

To accommodate more of the needs we would want to see small Traveller sites incorporated as part of other major developments. Based on an initial appraisal we have identified three of the housing sites in the plan as large enough to include and suitable for Traveller needs. We suggest that those three, Housing sites 13 Council Depot, Warley, 20 Sow & Grow Nursery, Pilgrims Hatch, and 21, Ingatestone Garden Centre should each include a 5 pitch site.

The plan needs to be clear about these requirements. We suggest that the descriptions of these three developments and the West Hordon strategic allocation under Policy DM23 are amended to make this clear. A possible form of words would be: 13 Council Depot, the Drive Warley (081) - (137 dwellings [or an amended figure reflecting the inclusion of the Traveller site], and a 5 pitch Gypsy and Traveller site) etc.

Together these proposals would accommodate 66 pitches, leaving an additional minimum 10 to be identified. This should be done through this development plan process. Given the very strong policy presumption against Traveller sites in Green Belt, it would not be appropriate to leave a balance of sites to come forward through planning applications.

The Traveller community in Brentwood all own their own sites, and would want most of the new provision provided on a private basis. They also recognise that some families cannot afford sites and need to rent. We suggest that the 6 small sites we envisage as part of developments (West Horndon and housing sites 13, 20 & 21) should include 2 or 3 small public sites. This approach is consistent with Government policy, see the 5th bullet under paragraph 4 of Planning policy for traveller sites.

The Traveller Law Reform Project (TLRP) is a partnership of Traveller organisations, promoting Traveller Law reform and monitoring its implementation. We wish to submit a number of comments on the Brentwood Local Plan Preferred Options in support to the representations made by the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group (BGSG), the Traveller Movement and other Gypsy and Traveller organisations and community representatives.

We acknowledge that the approach set out in Policy DM28 is very positive and it generally meets the requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. However, we consider the pitch target to be based on an underestimation of need, which should be amended in order to ensure the soundness of the Plan.

First of all, we wish to support the figures proposed by the BGSG and the Traveller Movement, which estimate a need for an additional 75-86 pitches by 2030. A pitch target starting at this range would recognise the real scale of need for Gypsy and Traveller sites. We consider the need identified in the East of England Plan to be an underestimation, given the issues presented in the Regional Strategy Panel Report, the shortcomings of assessing the needs of housed Gypsies and Travellers, migration into the area and an unwillingness within the community to self-identify due to fear of discrimination.

In addition, TLRP research on Local Plans in the South East and East of England after the adoption of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites shows an emerging trend in very low levels of need identified through the new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments. We therefore strongly advocate for a realistic and inclusive target for at least 75-86 additional pitches to be delivered in Brentwood by 2030.

Regarding the identified land supply, we wish to support the comments and proposals made by the BGSG in sections A-D of their consultation response. In line with the principles set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller sites relating to site sustainability and community inclusion, other alternatives should also be included in the site allocation process, such as smaller sites to accommodate extended families and integration of pitch provision within larger housing developments.

Finally, the target should be met through the development plan process, by identifying broad site locations, as opposed to waiting for some of the provision to be made through planning applications. This would mitigate the constraints imposed by the Green Belt and scarcity of developable land.

The Traveller Law Reform Project (TLRP) is a partnership of Traveller organisations, promoting Traveller Law reform and monitoring its implementation. We wish to submit a number of comments on the Brentwood Local Plan Preferred Options in support to the representations made by the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group (BGSG), the Traveller Movement and other Gypsy and Traveller organisations and community representatives.

We acknowledge that the approach set out in Policy DM28 is very positive and it generally meets the requirements of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. However, we consider the pitch target to be based on an underestimation of need, which should be amended in order to ensure the soundness of the Plan.

First of all, we wish to support the figures proposed by the BGSG and the Traveller Movement, which estimate a need for an additional 75-86 pitches by 2030. A pitch target starting at this range would recognise the real scale of need for Gypsy and Traveller sites. We consider the need identified in the East of England Plan to be an underestimation, given the issues presented in the Regional Strategy Panel Report, the shortcomings of assessing the needs of housed Gypsies and Travellers, migration into the area and an unwillingness within the community to self-identify due to fear of discrimination.

In addition, TLRP research on Local Plans in the South East and East of England after the adoption of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites shows an emerging trend in very low levels of need identified through the new Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessments. We therefore strongly advocate for a realistic and inclusive target for at least 75-86 additional pitches to be delivered in Brentwood by 2030.

Regarding the identified land supply, we wish to support the comments and proposals made by the BGSG in sections A-D of their consultation response. In line with the principles set out in the Planning Policy for Traveller sites relating to site sustainability and community inclusion, other alternatives should also be included in the site allocation process, such as smaller sites to accommodate extended families and integration of pitch provision within larger housing developments.

Finally, the target should be met through the development plan process, by identifying broad site locations, as opposed to waiting for some of the provision to be made through planning applications. This would mitigate the constraints imposed by the Green Belt and scarcity of developable land.

I endorse the comments submitted by Professor Thomas Acton on the local plan, particularly relating to Gypsies and Travellers. [Brentwood Gypsy Support Group (BGSG)]

I particularly support the right of William Eastwood of Beads Hall Lane, Pilgrims Hatch to be given permanent Planning Permission for his site.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28, in particular section C. [Brentwood Gypsy Support Group (BGSG)]

I personally know some of the Beads Hall Lane residents affected by the oversight and am very aware of the distress caused.

This is a matter of great concern to me and I do hope it can be resolved soon.

I am objecting to CP4 concerning West Horndon and the proposed development of 1500 new homes in the village. I understand there is need for some development and would not object to a sustainable development on existing building areas. I would not condone ANY development on green belt.
In the LDP it states that 1500 new homes be built in West Horndon which would treble the size of the village drastically changing the character and feel of the existing community. The scale of the development would effectively create a new settlement.
There is no evidence or reason why West Horndon should have 43% of the boroughs housing requirement.
It states West Horndon has excellent transport links, but the current transport infrastructure can just about cope with the traffic and commuters it already has. By adding 1500 new homes the 'excellent' transport links would collapse completely.
The train line cannot add any more trains or services to West Horndon as there are only 2 lines and these already run at capacity. The rush hour services operate a 12 carriage service and that is the maximum we can have on the line, later trains could have extra carriages but it's the early trains that need them which as stated are already at capacity.
The A127 is already at critical capacity in the rush hours especially going into London in the morning and heading towards Southend in the evening with long tale backs occurring every day. With the expansion of Southend airport this will only increase, factor in the traffic from 1500 new homes and we face further chaos. The existing access and exits to the A127 are unsuitable for the current traffic and would have to be updated at great expense.
The A128 suffers same issues and currently the access point via station road is a very dangerous junction for motorists trying to access the A128. Driving into Brentwood you have to use the A128 and the traffic is often backed up to the halfway house in the mornings. This can be worse if road works are in place or if there is an accident on the A127. There is no way that you could widen the A128 in the critical area of Herongate and Ingrave. Travelling in the other direction towards the A13 the traffic in the mornings is back up past Orsett and the Orsett cock roundabout is always busy. With more houses proposed in Orsett and the 1500 in West Horndon this junction would also require major works at great cost.
The M25 has recently been widened and could cope with extra traffic from 1500 new homes, however to access it you need to travel along the A127 and as I have already pointed out it would not be able to cope with extra traffic.
There is a very poor bus service at the moment with bus companies not keen to extend their routes into West Horndon. This has always been a problem. If by some miracle more buses were provided it would add to the traffic woes on the A128.
The LDP also states that our infrastructure is good with a range of shops and amenities. In real life we have a small local shop and a small mini market neither of which could be expanded but would be out of business if new shops were put in.
We have an oversubscribed Doctor's surgery which would need to be expanded if new homes were built.
The school is at near full capacity and would have to be expanded at great cost to accommodate the children 1500 new homes would bring. Currently the secondary education for our children is Brentwood based but all of the schools are oversubscribed.
There is a café in the village which relies on its custom workers on the industrial estate again they would lose their core business and be put out of business if the industrial estate was redeveloped into housing.
There is a restaurant in the village which would benefit from more customers. There is one local pub which again would benefit from more customers.
The infrastructure of our utilities would need millions spent on updating. Currently West Horndon's electric supply is main overhead and this would have to be put underground. Our gas would also have to be updated, there are many small gas leaks reported in the village each year.
The main problem is with our water waste disposal with our sewer systems unable to cope with the current output from homes. If we have a period of rain then the drains overflow throughout the village. There would have to be a thorough overhaul of the whole system.
Which brings me onto the flooding situation in the village. Having had my house flooded on Christmas day causing over twenty five thousand pounds worth of damage I am only too familiar with the real problem we experience in the village. The whole village is built on London clay and as such any sustained period of rainfall results in surface flooding throughout the village. When there is a prolonged period such as we had last year then the water table is at ground level which means we experience flash flooding causing damage to homes and property. West Horndon is on a flood plain having been part of the Thames flood plain hundreds of years ago. With global warming and rising sea levels it would be madness to build further on these areas. Furthermore these are not isolated incidents West Horndon has experience 3 major recorded floods in modern times but we experience continued minor flooding EVERY year. Our surrounding fields, gardens, ditches and roads are ALL affected. At present the fields in West Horndon act as a holding buffer for water flowing off Thorndon Park. If we were to develop on these fields then we would lose that and areas South of the village such Bulphan and South Ockendon would experience further flooding which goes against the national guidelines for LDP's saying that nod development should affect the surrounding areas.
In the LDP is states that there should be provision for employment. By proposing the redevelopment of the industrial estates we would lose employment. Hundreds of jobs would be lost, with no evidence of new ones being created. It says a new purpose built industrial park will be built, but there are no plans or evidence of this happening. It it's not build before the redevelopment then existing business will be forced from the borough. The biggest employers on the estate are haulage and courier companies. The reason they are there is easy access to the M25 and arterial Essex roads. For them to continue they would have to have the same or similar access meaning they would have to stay on the A127 and the only other industrial estates are Childerditch which is in Havering, Basildon or Laindon which come under Basildon or Romford which again comes under Havering. So not only would valuable jobs be lost they would move of the borough which goes against the core policies within the LDP.
The LDP in its current format is unsustainable for the proposed development of 1500 new homes in West Horndon.
If BBC could show that sustainable redevelopment of the industrial estates could be achieved with the necessary updating of ALL the infrastructure and amenities then I would not be against such a revision to the LDP.

COMMENT FORM

DM28 Gypsy & Traveller Provision
* There are five sites approximately 750 meters next to one another, i.e. Epping Forest, Brentwood, Havering District Council.
* We are hearing constant stories of people encroaching other peoples property in this vicinity more than before
* We are very disturbed by the documentation we have acquired i.e. BBC Annual Monitoring Report 2011/12 page 30 article 5.59
* At a meeting with Brentwood Council on Tuesday September 10th at Navestock Village Hall there seemed great confusion between how many 'Pitches' are on the site, or how many there are supposed to be.
* Also the suggested pitches of 44 "FORTY FOUR". We have confirmation there are 96 "NINETY SIX" pitches at the BBC count in July 2012. RE. BBC Report 2011/12 page 28 Table 9 Article 5.53/
* Just for your records we will enclose our amended letter.
* We are not against Gypsies and Travellers living in our community or next to us, but they should be 'evenly' placed within the Council Districts with the settled community taken into consideration.

-------------------------------------------------------
LETTER

Dear Sir/Madam

This is the 13th planning application since July 2005. We have replied to every application except one. Our reasons being at the time of personal nature with the applicants buyers/sellers at the time.

With reference to our letter to you dated 14th August 2007 nothing has changed, with more Gypsy families arriving and putting us in a surrounded situation. Regarding your letter ALU/ENF/BRW59/2007 and the 2015 - 2030 Gypsy and Traveller Provision, we still feel you show no concern that we are still surrounded by these families due to the fact that none of them have moved, and more are moving in.

We feel the reason (We have been to numerous appeals) they are allowed to stay here is because they want somewhere to settle with their families. Their children need schooling and they want somewhere to settle with their families. Their children need schooling and they need better and stable lifestyle, perhaps this is the reason why they don't want to travel anymore!

This is a big problem to us because it has devalued our house which means we could not sell, according to two estate agents, therefore forcing us to panic buy more land adjacent to ours, which we are continuing to do to stop us being completely surrounded.

Over the last 7 years trying to better our lifestyle, we have had three planning applications turned down. The first being houses for our four sons. The second being a swimming pool/gym for our families personal use. The third being a set of bungalows/starter homes for our four sons, all of these being refused. We feel we are being victomised due to us living a normal life in a house. We have taken legal advice which due to financial reasons i.e. we have run out of money due to buying all the surrounding land around us. We have had to put this on hold!

Each refusal letter states very special circumstances and words like detrimental to the countryside. Again, we suggest you come here and look to see what has happened over the last 13 and a half years. We are still in consultation with our property lawyers, of how to take this/these matters and make it into our advantage

Proposed building of 1500 homes at West Horndon, Essex

I am writing this letter to register my opposition to the proposed scheme. My reasons are as follows:

1. Consultation
The scheme you have proposed has no substance. How can anyone give a reasoned response when most of the information is not available in the report? i.e. Its 'Pie in the Sky'
2. Infrastructure
a. Roads - It is obvious to anyone who visits the village that the roads are inadequate for the present needs and are badly maintained
b. Rail - The present rail service is fully used and at full capacity. I am told that there is only standing room on the trains to Fenchurch Street from 0630 hours
c. Buses - I know nothing about the bus services so I cannot give a view.
d. Health Services - At present there is an adequate Doctor and hospital presence locally. Additional population will overload the system. The aging population of West Horndon will progressively need health care and, as such, the present services will be stretched.
e. Sewage - The present sewer system can barely cope. When heavy rainfalls many gardens/houses are flooded with sewage.

3. Location
a. Village Status - The area has approximately 700 homes and the addition of another 1500 homes will, in effect, make it into a town [With no centre and no soul]
b. Metropolitan Green Belt - I find it impossible to understand why it is necessary to erode this protected area when there must be other areas available. WASN'T THE GREEN BELT CREATED TO STOP URBAN SPRAWL?
c. Flood Danger - I understand that the area of Metropolitan Green Belt designated is a 'Fail Safe' area to protect West Horndon from flooding i.e. It's a flood plain, Should remedial action be taken, one assumes that Bulpham will be flooded and not West Horndon!!!
d. Employment - It is quite likely that the new arrivals will seek employment in London, with no benefit to Brentwood.
e. Wildlife - I believe that large colonies of wildlife, birds, small animals etc will be effected by building on the Green Belt site.

4. Fairness
a. It seems a large number of homes have been allocated to West Horndon i.e. 43%
b. Based on the 'Local Plan'and the locations shown in the local paper, it would appear that not many homes are proposed north of Brentwood. WHY!!!
c. It also appears that NO HOMES are proposed in Shenfield!!! WHY!!! It will have Cross-Rail and, one assumes, a large influx of people wishing to live there.
d. Most villagers feel that West Horndon is being taken for a ride.

5. Travelers
a. The treat of having 'travellers sites' in the village has acted as a sort of blackmail. Travellers sites cannot be sites on flood plains, therefore let the council build on the industrial site and only leave flood plain sites so no travelers will come to the village. Shame on you for using this tactic!
b. NO information is being given with your proposals regarding the travelers sites. How can West Horndon feel that their future is in good hands when you are so devious?

6. Industrial Site
a. The nebulous plan to relocate the industrial site north of the A127 relies again on using a Green Belt designated area.
b. Are all the tenants from the industrial area agreeable to move?

Conclusion:
1. Should any of the proposed work be carried out it will be detrimental to the well being of the people you are supposed to represent, West Horndon residents
2. With such an un-informed, weak, and badly though out plan are you, fpr some reason, attempting to adopt. I cannot see that this has any professional input and, if it is so, political pressure must have been brought to bear. Are you doing your job or are you getting your constituents to do it for you?
3. It is generally accepted in the village that some houses will be built. The 'brownfield' site would seem to be the most suitable, but, saturation of that site will also bring problems.
4. If your previous record is anything to go by in West Horndon, the supporting infrastructure required for these houses, and to supplement the present population, will not be provided. Promise, Promise, Promise.

In the hope that you take account of my views, though I won't hold my breath

Yours truly,