Our village is being destroyed by Gypsy and Traveller sites. We have to cope with rubbish on lanes, sewage in ditches, the destruction of adjacent SSSIs, trespass, thieving and intimidation. The Council's Plan will do nothing to stop this. The sites destroy green belt, also no one wants to buy a house in this area because of traveller sites.

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 response.

Reference Local Planning Document DM28
I am pleased to support the comments submitted by my eldest son Thomas Acton, whom I much admire for his some forty years, helping Gypsies and Travellers, especially in securing education for their children which earned him a well deserved OBE a couple of years ago. But of course, legally allowed state education requires reasonably secure homes. Very many of the Gypsy/Travellers whose sites are listed in your document, a number of whom are known by us as personal friends, have been living up to ten years with the agonising prospect of being evicted from their own land, receiving only temporary permissions to stay at intervals inbetween.. We very much hope that with your help their long-standing worry will be removed. So far as I know they all get on well with their neighbours and do excellent work in gardening, fencing, tree pruning or removal, tarmacking, etc. Thomas mentions the case of the site in Bedes Hall Lane, Pilgrims Hatch, which my wife and I visited with your planning official some months ago.. We thought it was a very pretty well kept site.. There was a ramp up to the single trailer so that Billy Eastwood could run up his severely disabled daughter on her portable bed/chair when he was looking after her (He brought her to our Church in it on one occasion). Also it is worth mentioning that there are the remains of a previously built brick cottage on the site. So there is no case for saying it is 'green belt'.. We feel that there is a strong case for including this site in those planned for permanent approval.

I fully endorse Professor T. A Acton's response to DM28 (enclosed). In particular, I welcome section C. I personally know some of the residents affected by the oversight of omitting them from the original list and know of the undue stress caused as a consequence. Please could this be remedied as a matter of urgency

See attached response.

Object to:
Primarily - CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area & Supporting Documents
plus the following in connection with impact on West Horndon;
S2: Amount & Distribution of Residential Development
CP3: Strategic Sites 020 / 021 / 037
DM11: New Development in the Green Belt
DM17: Wildlife and Nature Conservation
DM24: Affordable Housing
DM28: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
DM35: Flood Risk
Appendix 3: Housing Trajectory

Comments (please use additional sheet if required):
The Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and supporting documents are in sufficiently detailed with information to justify the disproportionate allocation of 43% of the borough housing requirement and 70% of Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be allocated to the village of West Horndon. These numbers will treble the current size of the village whilst decimating a large area of Green Belt. We as villagers did not receive the promised feedback from the 2011 consultation and previously discounted areas of Greenfield have now been put back into the LDP without explanation despite strong resident opposition to Green Belt development. The character of the village will be irreparably damaged by such a huge development and change our village status to a small town with none of the amenities. I am being expected to make a decision on the future of my neighbourhood with limited information which is wholly unacceptable.

The LDP fails to state how and when the local road, education, health, rail and utility infrastructure will be improved to accommodate such an aggressive development and from where the necessary funding has been secured. It would be irresponsible to proceed without detailed planning for such vital associated services. There is no further rail capacity available and the route does not provide access to our borough. The housing trajectory shows a staged construction of houses yet there is no evidence of a demand for house building in the area as potential sites have been left undeveloped in Station Road and on the Elliott's site for several years. Affordable and social housing is not ideally situated in rural areas such as West Horndon and the new development is unlikely to comprise of properties similar to the family homes that dominate the village demographic. Traffic at its peak causes congestion along Station road when trying to exit onto the already dangerous and packed A128. (numerous accidents have occurred at this junction before and after highways made changes and adding further traffic will raise the risks further )
The LDP gives no consideration to the wider implications from other developments in the vicinity, such as the DP World port and proposed A2 Thames crossing, both of which will dramatically increase traffic in the area and place further burdens on the Borough's infrastructure without the additional traffic from the proposed West Horndon development. There are only two routes into Brentwood from West Horndon (A128 / Warley) and access to the area will be gridlocked.
Green Belt development is designed to halt the sprawl of London and should only be in exceptional cases. In the evidence documents on the BBC website the projected population increase for Brentwood is primarily migratory. I see absolutely no reason why the Green Belt should be threatened by movement of people which, by its very nature, can settle on non green belt locations. The wildlife in the area will be adversely affected by the proposed development on Green Belt and I must question whether investigation has been made into protected species which inhabit the area such as Great Crested Newts as there is no mention in the LDP.
The Environmental Agency lists areas 020, 021 and 037 as being on flood plain as borne out by the most recent flooding incidents in 2012. The village suffers from flooding or near flooding on a regular basis in this area with no plans to remove the risk of further flooding once the development has been started it will only get worse. There is no evidence that this factor has been considered in the LDP and to site traveller and gypsy pitches on a flood plain is unacceptable.
I do not believe that the LDP is sound or robust enough to be considered in its present form and appears to be a rash decision to fulfil government targets. I acknowledge that progress must be made and that some development may be necessary and this should be made in smaller numbers to keep the village in its status. However, much more investigation needs to be undertaken by the council and the views of the community considered in depth before any decisions are made that will affect us in the long term.

RE: West Horndon Local development plan 2015-2030
Proposed erection of 1,500 houses and 14 Traveler pitches

I write in connection with the above planning application. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.

The prospect of such wide expansion in West Horndon should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the village while estate development would overwhelm it. The protection of West Horndon's visual, historic and archaeological qualities is also supported by Policy CP9 in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan; it states that "new development should foster a sense of place and local identity, respect, and where possible enhance the character of the area". Erecting 1,500 homes and 14 traveler pitches in West Horndon would decimate it as the village we all know and love. This plan fails to improve the character of this area and therefore should not be accepted.

Pressure for the development in the village is considerable, mainly for housing city commuters, but has been successfully resisted once before in the last five years. The reason for rejecting that plan included the inadequacy of the roads to accommodate even small increases in traffic. This huge expansion would triple the amount of traffic through the village and because road widening isn't an option due to current housing and field boundaries, it would cause absolute chaos. In addition, I am concerned that this would place extra strain on our already packed trains and near full school. These two infrastructures in particular would not cope with the proposed changes.

The proposed site of the development is particularly ill considered: it is on a greenbelt site. Sites like these currently act as floodplains. With the area already prone to flooding, I fear that if these were built on, flooding in the area would be worse and more regular. Building here would both diminish the striking view into the village from Childerditch lane and be prominent from most angles within the village.

Furthermore, there is no need for this kind of open market housing in the village and there is certainly no need for traveler pitches. West Horndon already has enough large houses: the only identified need is for affordable housing for residents who work locally, as recently confirmed by your Housing Department's Housing Needs Survey. As an alternative to this proposal, I would support the construction of around 250 houses built on the Horndon industrial park as I agree to the idea of relocating this industrial park closer to the M25. It would have to be ensured that these were affordable homes for local people.

I understand that the Parish Council and the rest of the West Horndon community share these concerns.

I have lived in West Horndon since 1957. I have raised my four children here. I am a widow of 5 years, and will be aged 86 on Friday 4th October. I object to the building of so many new houses in West Horndon and also object most strongly to having a gypsy site here. We do not have the amenities for all these people to live here. The school is full and so is the Doctors list. The trains are overflowing with passengers. You are trying to make a village into a small town.
To move the industrial site, could be achieved, but we cannot cope with more houses and more people living in the village without more amenities. When I die my daughter's dearest wish is to live in this house and hopes it will be the same as it is as present - unspoilt.

I object most strongly to the plans to build 15,000 houses and a gypsy site in West Horndon.

My girlfriend and I are 29 and moved into Thorndon Avenue 18 months ago. It took us many years to save our deposit up, and we chose the village for its scenery, demography and village character.

If the planned proposals were to go ahead, the level of additional supply of housing every year for 15 years, the demography of many of the people moving into the new properties and the locality of the gypsie/traveller pitches would almost certainly negatively effect the value of our property. After working hard for all those years to buy our first home, we would then be unable to move house ever again given the losses doing so would incur. How could anybody justify this - destroying so much wealth.

Other concerns that I have are as follows:
- The level of housing proposed (>40% of the total housing requirement in Brentwood) is massively disproportionate to population of West Horndon. Irrespective of the available infrastructure, this would complete change the character of the village - indeed it would cease to be a village.
- This would build over Green Belt land unnecessarily when there are other areas with adequate transport networks that could absorb the level of housing build proposed in West Horndon
- Eric Pickles comments in the Independent 2rd June 2010 "It will no longer be possible to concrete over large swathes of the country without any regard to what local people want" and ""The previous government gave a green light for the destruction of the green belt across the country and we are determined to stop it." This is literally concreting over green belt land - it cannot be described any other way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/03/eric-pickles-concrete-green-belt [ link to article in the Guardian 'Eric Pickles: government will not concrete over green belt' Monday 3 Oct 2011]
- Your proposals will be trapping myself and my partner for many years in our current house, and we may never be able to leave as a result of the house price declines this will cause.- There is no guidance on the % of affordable housing in the West Horndon area
- What is the definition of affordable housing and what would the character of these properties be
- Where, specifically, would the gypsie / traveller pitches be placed. Does the council have a legal obligation to provide these.
- I understand there is a current motion in Parliament that removes the obligation to house gypsie / traveller populations - what is the progress of this and will the planned pitches in West Horndon be cancelled if this motion suceeds.
- The wealth destruction to the value of the existing houses would be enormous. In a society that aims to increase wealth, how can this proposal even be considered and what kind of incentive does it provide to even continue working and providing to the state.

We would like to register my families objections to your proposed plans for West Horndon.

1. Infrastructure
The current infrastructure barely meets the needs of the village and would not be able to sustain a larger community. Both the A127 and A128 have seen a number of fatal and serious injury accidents and the local police continue with little success to enforce the current laws within the confines of the village. For example speed, parking and HGV. The polices' response time is also inadequate and poor, and a larger community will only increase crime, anti social behaviour and a heavier burden on an already over stretched police force. It is a stated fact that any new build will have to include a substantial amount of social housing and my experiences shows that this will allow your council and surrounding boroughs and London inner city councils to re home or place problem families within this community ( as it is out of sight and out of mind. ) The increase in size of the village would also have a financial burden on the residents that I am sure Brentwood council would not be responsible for. For example higher crime equals higher home insurance and more vehicles will increase car insurance.

2. Amenities
West Horndon is built within a flood area and has already experienced flooding in December 2012. Since we have lived in the village we have experienced a number of main drain over spills that has lead to excrement on our drives and pavements. It is a know fact in the village that the sewage struggles to cope with the demand. Therefore any build will also mean disruption to the sewage.
I am a current train user and know from personal experience that the station during rush hour is overwhelmed and has little scope for an increase in passengers. The car park too often over spills into the road. The shops within the village would not sustain a trebling of the house numbers that you propose, neither would the doctors, school or community hall.
The demolition and displacement of the industrial estate will also cause hardship and unemployment to villagers in a time of social disharmony. A number of villagers will not be able to relocate.

3. Travellers
Travellers already bring a well documented list of issues whereever they are housed and West Horndon already has a number of sites within a short radias ie Thurrock, Dale Farm a traveller site in Upminster and the A130. These sites although legal will often encourage illegal sites that the borough has already shown its inability and lack of interest to deal with appropriately and within a reasonable time period. There is no explanation as to why West Horndon has been selected when it was not considered appropriate several years ago when sites were being discussed. Other sites proposed are for only two or three pitches where as West Horndon has a minimum of 10.

4. Green Belt
The metropolitan green belt was set up to show a clear boundary between the city of London and its surrounding counties. Building on this land will reduce the identity of villages in Essex and other counties and will be swallowed up in the London Metropolis. Building on green belt land is ill advised and will set a precedence that will allow further builds. Other areas should be looked at such as the compulsory purchase of Tescos land at the end of Sawyers Hall lane or Childerditch that is several miles closer to Brentwood. This would cause less disruption to the community and have better access to current schools and amenities in the area.

Finally I would like to stress that I feel the consultation process has been flawed and lack of information and the inability or apathy of the planning unit towards us leads me to believe that as we are on the border of Brentwood it is easier for you to dump these issues on us rather than have them on your own doorsteps.

I think it is an absolute joke that a plan has been drawn up to build such a large volume of houses in such a small area. The facilities in the area can only just about manage with the current level of people in the village. The school and doctors are at full capacity. That is the key point that the facilities in the village are already stretched and there has been no plan shared on improving them.
The second point is that the village is not very well maintained at the moment with poor quality roads and footpaths, how will the council maintain them with a minimum addition of 1,500 people?

I understand there is a requirement to build homes and that's why I agree with LDP 021. This plan will bring advantages to the village such as reducing the ridiculous amount of large commercial vehicles that drive through the village and make the lanes less dangerous. Even if 250 homes were to be built there would still be a need to improve the facilities as the current setup would not be feasible.
I also do not agree with the sheer number of gypsy plots that have been assigned to be built in West Horndon. Surely these should be more evenly distributed over the whole of Brentwood council. There is already a gypsy plot approximately 1 mile away from West Horndon on St Mary's Lane going towards Upminster. How the growth of the gypsy plots will be controlled also concerns me.

West Horndon strategic planning

With reference to the above West Horndon strategic planning, I understand that more homes are needed for the ever growing population of this country, but I do strongly object to the proposed gypsy camp site.

I received Issue 2: July 2013, development plan newsletter the day after the local plan consultation events summer 2013, so was unaware of the this meeting at the parish council meeting - St Francis church centre, which I found out about from a neighbour.

I Strongly object to this proposal of the gypsy site, the housing as I said before has to be done, but hopefully it will be keeping with the area of private dwellings and not housing association housing and camp sites.

I would like to be kept up to date with this plan and not receive letters after the event.

West Horndon proposed development

I appreciate that Brentwood Council have to find land for 3000 homes to accommodate the government guide lines. The 500 homes proposed for West Horndon Industrial Estate is fee sable due to the Industrial site getting bigger wanting a more desirable location for units and transport. West Horndon has approximately 800 homes many families living their for years. The 1000 homes which you propose is in green belt land which floods occasionally when ditches overflow with heavy rain or A127 road floods. I know this because I live at the top end of Thorndon Ave and our Gardens and fields at back of us are under water. You are proposing a 200% increase in our village also the whole of Brentwood has many villages with green belt land around them ,how come they are not getting there share and you want to put 43% of your new homes in West Horndon .Having looked at the proposed site for a Gypsy site at Thorndon Park A127 do you honestly believe people will want to buy a new home in view of a Gypsy site or do you think people will want to visit Thorndon Park and leave there cars next to a Gypsy site ,even though I know Romany Gypsy's clean and trustworthy there are a lot of other travellers that are not. The slip road on the flyover at A127 going to Basildon Southend you have just given permission for a Boot sale every week why couldn't the Gypsy camp go there instead of next to a park .I'm sure they would prefer it because they like being on there own. With all the villages in Brentwood are they having Gypsy sites and 1500 homes built destroying the environment and a village that has been here since Henry the 8th.

1. Major development & West Horndon - the scale of development would treble the village I chose to live in and change the complete character of it and we have been provided with no explanation as to why we should accept 43% of the borough's overall development. There is no real detail to support this allocation. No infrastructure delivery plan has been provided. No assessment of infrastructure has been done - why? We have been asked to comment on a proposal that only has an outline - how can we really comment knowledgeably on that?? The Council are attempting consultation prematurely based on the evidence we have received.

2. The local community has not been involved as the National Planning Policy framework says that it should be. - why not?

3. The Metropolitan Green Belt in West Horndon which is a large part of the plan - according to the National Plan development here is inappropriate and harmful - why then is it in the plan?

4. Sustainable? We have very limited amenities, you can barely get on the train at rush hour, you need to schedule your illness in advance to get a doctor's appointment, although Brentwood is supposed to be our town centre unless you drive it's practically impossible to get to, as the bus service is so infrequent, new residents means more cars also - this clearly shows that the village is not sustainable as a site.

5. Has there been any thought given to the wildlife in the area at all? - no mention of it in the plan

6. Proposals are unclear as to the mix and proportion of land uses but appears to be mainly residential - reason to believe that there will be a harmful effect to the residential amenities of West Horndon

7. The junctions and roads as they are now are inadequate to cope with the traffic we already have - has there been any practical thought put into how this will be managed if we have transport for another 1500 homes? If there has been - it's not in the plan.

8. West Horndon according to the Environment agency (and most home insurance companies also) is considered as at risk of flooding - is it a good idea to build where there is a likelihood of flooding? - once again the plan doesn't appear to have been though through.

9. Where will the local business be moved to? How will the local people employed there get to work if they have no transport? - Local employment will be lost if this is not considered carefully!

10. The Borough based on the information I have seen does not provide a sound plan to be examined by the community and therefore cannot be seen to be responding to the communities needs and is therefore not really enough to go forward for any kind of approval - a serious amount of work needs to be done before this can happen.

11. DM28 - How can we even consider this when the plan doesn't provide accurate locations or numbers for us to consider? How is that West Horndon once again could end up with the highest percentage allocation in the borough? Once again, this can't be considered a plan that is actually ready for consultation - needs a lot more work before.

I don't in principle object to new housing, however , for the reasons outlined above the Council really needs to start again with this and work with the local community so a complete and correct plan could be consulted on.

West Horndon LDP

Dear Sirs, we must add our feelings of total dismay that BDC would even consider ruining WH village by the over-development of building 1500 new houses, and the proposal of a gypsy encampment so close to such a special area is enough to make you want to slash your wrists! WH is not the most scenic of Essex villages, this we accept, but it is a proper village, with scores of local things going on, and that is why we choose to live here. If we wanted to live among thousands of other people, we would move to Basildon or Harlow. You do not have the right to take away the quality of life that we have in WH. If you lived here, you would realise just how special it is.

Ok, we accept that the borough does need to expand with new/and or/ affordable housing, and we do have the necessary road/rail links. If any new development comes to the area, why does it need to be right IN WH? Could the proposed housing not be moved to an area say between WH and the A127, with some green areas and/or woodland planted in between WH and the new houses, but with road/footpath access into WH for trains etc. The new area doesn't even need to be called WH, it could be anything linking the areas, New Hordon, Horndon Heath, Fields etc.

And as to the gypsies, this beggars belief. Is this really what BDC wants to be responsible for, trashing the boroughs reputation for village life, as we know the devastating effect of gypsy encampments on local communities. Travellers (well, they don't TRAVEL do they?) must have places to live and put down roots, like any other person, but surly to God there must be other places within the boroughs boundry where their style of life doesn't ruin others. Gypsies like to keep them selves private, for ALL sorts of reasons. They don't want to 'integrate' with 'country people' as we're called, so it must be possible for BDC to find them some isolation away from WH where they can lead the life that suites them.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

Whilst we support a certain amount of well thought-out new housing development in West Horndon, we object to the building and allocation of gipsy and traveller sites near the village, as the proposal stands. More information is needed for evaluation and response. Such allocation should take place where it can be supported by existing or new infrastructure and be self-sufficient in terms of essential services provided such as its own primary school, surgery, shop, etc. The rationale for this emerges from the historical downgrading of the local nearby communities and amenities, increase in crime rate and a general disregard for the environment. The nomadic nature of such groups implies that they do not easily identify with their environment and facilities and historically have no interest in caring for their environment or to become part of an established community. The result is a downgrading of the environment in their own sites spilling into the surrounding areas and villages (Dale Farm is a recent example) giving rise to increased litter, increased crime, children wandering the streets unsupervised, little or no economic benefit for the local shops and increased vigilance, all of which translates into a generalised lower quality of life for the existing resident tax payers.

The National Planning Policy document (para. 3) states clearly that "developments of gipsy and traveller sites have to respect the interests of the settled community", and we and many others need this Policy respected and carefully interpreted and implemented with full consultation to avoid us being displaced elsewhere. If the existing National Policy is applied rigorously to safeguard our interests, taking the above representations on board, it should be possible to satisfy all the requirements with the minimum of inconvenience.

Whilst we support a certain amount of well thought-out new housing development in West Horndon, we object to the building and allocation of gipsy and traveller sites near the village, as the proposal stands. More information is needed for evaluation and response. Such allocation should take place where it can be supported by existing or new infrastructure and be self-sufficient in terms of essential services provided such as its own primary school, surgery, shop, etc. The rationale for this emerges from the historical downgrading of the local nearby communities and amenities, increase in crime rate and a general disregard for the environment. The nomadic nature of such groups implies that they do not easily identify with their environment and facilities and historically have no interest in caring for their environment or to become part of an established community. The result is a downgrading of the environment in their own sites spilling into the surrounding areas and villages (Dale Farm is a recent example) giving rise to increased litter, increased crime, children wandering the streets unsupervised, little or no economic benefit for the local shops and increased vigilance, all of which translates into a generalised lower quality of life for the existing resident tax payers.

The National Planning Policy document (para. 3) states clearly that "developments of gipsy and traveller sites have to respect the interests of the settled community", and we and many others need this Policy respected and carefully interpreted and implemented with full consultation to avoid us being displaced elsewhere. If the existing National Policy is applied rigorously to safeguard our interests, taking the above representations on board, it should be possible to satisfy all the requirements with the minimum of inconvenience.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

1. Major development & West Horndon - the scale of development would treble the village I chose to live in and change the complete character of it and we have been provided with no explanation as to why we should accept 43% of the borough's overall development. There is no real detail to support this allocation. No infrastructure delivery plan has been provided. No assessment of infrastructure has been don - why? We have been asked to comment on a proposal that only has an outline - how can we really comment knowledgeably on that?? The Council are attempting consultation prematurely based on the evidence we have received.

2. The local community has not been involved as the National Planning Policy framework says that it should be. - why not?

3. The Metropolitan Green Belt are in West Horndon which is a large part of the plan - according to the National Plan development here is inappropriate and harmful - why then is it in the plan?

4. Sustainable? We have very limited amenities, you can barely get on the train at rush hour, you need to schedule your illness in advance to get a doctor's appointment, although Brentwood is supposed to be our town centre unless you drive it's practically impossible to get to as the bus service is so infrequent, new residents means more cars also - this clearly shows that the village is not sustainable as a site.

5. Has there been any though given to the wildlife in the area at all? - no mention of it in the plan

6. Proposals areunclear as to the mix and proportion of land uses but appears to be mainly residential - reason to believe that there will be a harmful effect to the residential amenities of West Horndon

7. The junctions and roads as they are now are inadequate to cope with the traffic we already have - has there been any practical thought put into how this will be managed if we have transport for another 1500 homes? If there has been - it's not in the plan.

8. West Horndon according to the Environment agency (and most home insurance companies also) is considered as at risk of flooding - is it a good idea to build where there is a likelihood of flooding? - once again the plan doesn't appear to have been though through.

9. Where will the local business be moved too? How will the local people employed there get to work if they have no transport? - Local employment will be lost if this is not considered carefully!

10. The Borough based on the information I have seen does not provide a sound plan to be examined by the community and therefore cannot be seen to be responding to the communities needs and is therefore not really enough to go forward for any kind of approval - a serious amount of work needs to be done before this can happem

11. DM28 - How can we even consider this when the plan doesn't provide accurate locations or numbers for us to consider? How is that West Horndon once again could end up with the highest percentage allocation in the borough? Once again, this can't be considered a plan that is actuall ready for consultation - needs a lot more work before.

I have lived in West Horndon for over 40 years and chose to live here once I reached adulthood for the quality of life living in the village would provide, this would fundamentally change based on the Council's ill conceived plan. The Council really needs to start again with this and work with the local community so a complete and correct plan could be consulted on.

Although I am not keen on seeing my home village of West Horndon treble in size if the draft plan is taken forward in full, I am aware that new homes are needed and so fully appreciate Brentwood Council's thinking on how you have tried to address the issue. I do, however, think 1500 new homes is rather extreme.

My main concern is that the existing roads (Station Road/St Mary's Lane, Childerditch Lane and Thorndon Avenue) most likely to be affected and bear the brunt of increased traffic, are woefully incapable of doing so in their present state. Before any development takes place, it is imperative this aspect be addressed.

The same applies to ensuring sewerage and surface and domestic water drainage are properly catered for.

Other areas of concern are: (i) the effect of increased usage on the railway station - development of the station itself, additional car-parking (where would this be sited), increased train services (more frequent and longer trains?); (ii) healthcare provision - our doctors' surgery is currently a branch surgery; (iii) provision of green spaces and the retention of existing footpaths; (v) provision of homes suitable for elderly residents who wish to remain in the village but cannot, for whatever reason, remain in their present homes; (v) provision of childcare and schools (not of immediate interest to me, but will be to others).

The Plan refers to a possible circular bus route - we shall definitely need improved bus services; the current ones are very inadequate. At the moment, many of the workers at the present industrial sites arrive by train or walk if they live in the village. If the sites are moved as proposed to border the A127, then the workers shall have to drive there thereby increasing traffic and therefore pollution and noise etc. The bus route would have to be frequent, fit in with the train times, reliable and start early and finish late to ensure as many people as possible choose this option to travel to work.

Finally, the increased noise and traffic generated by building works even if only the industrial sites are developed shall cause major disruption to peoples' lives but even more so if the roads are not sorted out first.

One aspect of the Plan I cannot support is that of Traveller Pitches. I know the Council has to supply them by statute but the experience of people I know who live and work by such sites is that Travellers have no regard for the concerns of their non-Traveller neighbours. The examples of the Dale Farm sites (both legal and illegal) are what come to mind with their anti-social behaviour and real/perceived threat to safety and security of neighbouring properties.

Finally, although I am prepared to support the current draft plan, I would not support any further development of West Horndon as outlined in Appendix 2 as this would be a step too far.

1. I am objecting to the proposed plans for a number of reasons. Primarily it appears to be ill considered, inappropriate and 'rushed'. Specifically, how can any proposal suggesting that a small village of less than 1900 people, accommodate some 1500 new houses, be viewed as 'considered'? The fact that this represents 43% of the total development for the entire borough seems to be somewhat lopsided. The fact that the proposal does not give any details as to why and how this conclusion has been reached, amplifies my misgivings.

Expansion on this scale, virtually trebling the size of West Horndon, will overwhelm existing infrastructure, which in many cases is already inadequate. Traffic through the village generated by the trading estate, is a problem. Truck speeds are unsafe to pedestrians and damage roads and buildings (e.g. vehicles moving 20' and 40' TEU's already shake buildings as they pass). Broadband, essential for many tasks today, is a complete joke, operating at a speed that must warm the heart of any physical postal service. This brings me to my second concern...

2. Infrastructure. Roads, communications, water supply/waste management, public transport and education are all seriously impacted by the proposals. To bring these up to the level capable of supporting the proposed development must be implemented before any developments proceed - according to accepted national guidance of these matters. Is the money available to fund these significant upgrading programs without placing a considerable (unsustainable/unacceptable?) burden on the public purse?


3. Flood risk. Following the (actual) floods in 2012 and that the environment agency considers West Horndon and Bulphan flood risk areas, it is surprising that the council have not carried out any assessment of this risk. To develop in such an area is both reckless and potentially dangerous. The media's continuing interest in inappropriate development schemes ignoring prevailing evidence would doubtless expose any lack of rigorous assessment in this area.

4. Loss of the Green Belt. Many residents moved to West Horndon mainly because it is a village surrounded by open fields. The proposal as it stands and the scale of the development would destroy this. I understand that demand for housing is not sufficient reason for developing the green belt. Clearly, some small-scale development may be acceptable, but wholesale development on the scale proposed (tripling the size of the village) would only be acceptable to the completely delusional.

5. In summary; I consider the proposals as they stand are completely unacceptable. Some aspects of the proposal do have merit in that they would improve matters, but only if they are done in concert with 'substantial' upgrades to existing infrastructure. The change of use of the existing trading estate into residential use, would reduce (hopefully remove?) noise and the flow of heavy vehicles through the village. Improvements to the local broadband, drainage, healthcare and education infrastructure would also be welcomed so long as they occurred before any further redevelopment.

The existing plans are not sufficiently detailed as to how they address the numerous areas of concern raised by the residents. It appears the proposal is presented as a 'fait accompli' in an effort to protect the 'nicer' areas of the borough - why else would such a disproportionate level of development be concentrated on a village so unsuited to it. If it is suitable, where is the detailed eveidence???

Hi. Me and my family have moved to West Horndon last weekend 28th September.

I have just received a letter about the development plan on the industrial site here. I am not happy about it as we have moved here from Basildon Thinking it was a village and not over crowded . Plus I don't think West Horndon can hold any more houses due to the flooding and drainage .

I also have heard a rumour that the council are looking into putting a traveller site here aswell . If we would have known this we wouldn't have moved here . We have worked hard to move to West Horndon.

I hope my view helps to keep west horndon as it is.

1. I object to the proposed size of the development as it will:
Destroy the fabric of current village life.
Cause unacceptable disruption to the current population, many who are elderly, over a sustained lengthy period.

Produce a community too large to be effectively policed by local resources.
Cause local flooding and infrastructure issues not currently experienced and demanding a dis-proportionate level of expenditure to manage.

2. I object in principal the siting of Travellers within or near the community of West Horndon.

The proposal of 14 pitches is clearly a strategic error.
The size of such a plot is practically too large. It will effectively create a no go area for effective policing, have a disproportionate impact on the current community re disruption, disturbance and an increase in fear of crime for the current community. The running of generators, movement of heavy vehicles, increased likelihood of fly-tipping in the area. ( Not necessarily by the occupants but others who will identify it as a site where the travellers would be blamed.)
To site any Traveller's within walking distance of public houses invites a potential increase in anti-social problems. The disruption to local schooling is unacceptable.
Any Traveller sites should be no larger than 3-6 pitches therefore affording a balance between rights of travellers and local residents, neither will be able to impose it's lifestyle on the other. The size of a smaller site lends itself to more self control by the residents and easier policing and management. The blot on the landscape is less impactive and easier to disguise.

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.

With reference to the above proposal for 1500 new houses and a traveller site I would like to raise an objection on the ground of
1 West Horndon is at risk of flooding my garden regularly floods
2 The drains are inadequate now let alone with the additional volume
3 The proposed site incorporates the Metropolitan Green Belt site. It is there for a reason and I fear that once it is no longer sacred where will it end?
4 The school will not be able to cope
5 It will completely change the look, feel and character of the village and sometimes more is not better.

1. My primary objection is use of green belt land which I feel is inappropriate, given the limited amount of open spaces around the village. I moved to West Horndon because of the feel of open spaces, having lived in very built up areas before. I also understand that it is Government policy that exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of green belt land and I believe they recently expanded on this by saying that demand for housing is unlikely to be good reason enough to use green belt land.

2. I do not feel that West Horndon can cope with an influx of such a huge amount of dwellings. There is already considerable traffic going through the village both during the day and in the evenings. Our doctor's surgery is an off-shoot of the surgery in South Ockenden and as such has very limited opening hours - eg it is now closed on Tuesday afternoons to allow the doctors to spend more time at Ockenden. It is hard enough as it is to get an appointment - and I cannot see how it would cope with extra people living in the village. We are not very well served by public transport in the village. There is an infrequent bus service which does not run on a Sunday and you really need a car here, thus adding to the amount of traffic. The railway station only serves routes to London or to Southend etc, and does not cover getting around the Borough, eg to Brentwood.

3. Reverting back to my point about traffic in the village, the surrounding roads would be hard pressed to cope with additional cars. The A127 is always very busy, particularly during peak hours, with frequent traffic queues and hold-ups and with additional cars, this will impact also onto the A128.

4. West Horndon, according to the Environment Agency website is shown to be at risk of flooding and indeed as recently as 2012 there was flooding in the village. Has the Council carried out any assessment of the flood risk?

5. The scale of the proposed development by almost trebling the size of the village would have the effect of creating a new area which could no longer be classed as a village. I do not feel the Council has properly explained why West Horndon should accept such a large amount of new dwellings and why the Council deem it a suitable site for such a large development. From what I have read and heard, the Council haven't assessed whether West Horndon has the necessary infrastructure for such an increase in its size, eg utilities, telecoms (we have the slowest broadband here), waste etc etc.

6. There is also no clear indication in the outline proposals of where the travellers sites will be and this is also a concern.