I am writing to object about the recent proposal to build some 1,500 houses and traveller sites in West Horndon.

I have recently become a resident in West Horndon in June after purchasing my first property. Previously I resided in Romford, Havering. I moved from Romford as over the years i saw this town deteriorate drastically. The small village of West Horndon appealed due to its small village feel with close proximity to the railway.

There was no mention of these proposed plans within environmental searches before i purchased in June. If there was, I would have reconsidered.

I have noticed that since your proposal there has been a sudden spike in private properties being put up for sale, some by long-standing residents. Is it possible that their hand is being forced to vacate the village before their property loses value? The proposed traveller sites would almost certainly impact property prices. I certainly did not pay the West Horndon premium in June 2013 to suddenly hear that a legitimate traveller site will be allowed, which will have a negative impact to home owners in the village.

Question 1) why would you locate a traveller site in a village with good rail links to the city and other road networks.?

Question 2) would you want to buy a new home in a village or future state 'town' where there is a traveller site..? How will these 1,500 new homes be sold..? If they are not sold, will these then be additional social housing which will then drive down property prices and dilute the current upstanding and professional community.

Whilst I recognise that some new housing and new infrastructure would benefit the community and village. It is important to note that the shear scale of your proposed plan is too vast and West Horndon would lose its current identity.

I ask you to reconsider your proposed plans to provide the traveller sites.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I am writing about Brentwood Council's planning policy to inform you that I fully endorse Professor T.A. Acton's response to DM28 and in particular section C.
I will be following the council's forthcoming consultation report to DM28 with interest.

I strongly object to the proposed plan to build 1500 homes in West Horndon. This would treble the size of the village and change the character of the whole area. Why are we getting nearly 50% (43%) of the total number of the houses in the whole of the borough and why is the north of the borough not getting any??

As we have a station I believe this so called plus for housing here but if some of the new people are supposed to work or spend in the borough this is not possible from West Horndon Station. The railway station provides a commuter route into London but has limited additional capacity. The railway does not cater for the important local journeys, such as into Brentwood it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough.It does not support travel within the Borough. As there is not a good bus service into Brentwood this is not feasible. Even if new bus services were introduced this would impact further on the A128 where current levels of traffic are already close to breaking point and the A127 which is at a standstill most mornings towards London with heavy traffic going towards Southend so any extra vehicles from the 1500 houses could seriously risk a grid lock situation unless the A127 could be widened at a massive cost.

We are also being asked to comment on a major proposal having been presented with only an outline of what is proposed. It is not known therefore what benefits,if any, there might be for the village, or how the scheme might seek to mitigate against the many harmful impacts. There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through the village. Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits. There is no explanation why West Horndon, as a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes.

With the council's track record of not repairing roads or pavements. (Many of the pavements are very dangerous to walk on) or of the reduced amenities we have in the village we are very suspicious of getting any infrastructure that will maintain this level of housing. The sewerage is at capacity and many people get blocked drains and sewage etc flowing out over their gardens, drives etc. The preferred options document makes reference to an evidence base and infrastructure but is only able to say that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming" How can we comment on this? National guidance state that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, health, social care, education, and flood risk and its ability to meet forecast demands. This has not been done.

There us no evidence that the council has undertaken a flood risk. The village flooded in 1958, 1981 and most recently in 2012. I believe that the green belt earmarked for some of the housing acts as drainage to stop the village from flooding and if built on will increase the risk to the village and I believe Bulphan. A further flood alleviation scheme will increase risk to the south of the railway line and also will incur massive costs. There will be a knock on effect.

Whether new development can be proved to be sustainable is central to planning policy. Is this proposal sustainable - ensuring that better lives for ourselves doesn't mean worse lives in the future generations. I believe an essential requirement is that new home owners will not be over dependent on the car for journeys to work, school, shops, leisure activities and other services and amenities and I believe that in West Horndon they would be wholly reliant on their cars. West Horndon is a small village of less than 1900 people with a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has few shops, no secondary school and is remote from the larger centres of Brentwood, Basildon and Upminster. The primary school is at full capacity. There is a three day wait to see a doctor and there is an infrequent bus service.If 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. It is possible that improvements could be made to the infrastructure and public transport and new local facilities provided but given the major scale of the proposed development such measures will not overcome the fact that West Horndon is to a genuinely sustainable location.

West Horndon is a small lower density settlement surrounded by open countryside. The village is characterised by larger plots backing onto open fields. A wide variety of wildlife can be seen in and around the village. Birds such as the Dunnock, Thrush Finch, Nightingale, Skylark, Kestrel, Buzzard, Tawny Owl and so on. Butterflies such as Small Blue, Red Admiral, Wall Brown. The water Vole Great Crested Newts and Pipestrelle Bats. The construction of 1500 homes on the edge of the village, and the consequence loss of a large expanse of open countryside, will destroy its open setting and rural character. No consideration has been given to wildlife and bio-diversity issues.

The proposals are not clear on the mix and proportion of land uses, with what appears to be a leaning towards an almost wholly residential scheme. There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through the residential streets of the village. Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic overlooks back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

TRAVELLERS

I believe that it is also proposed to put travellers sites here too. As Travellers are not allowed to be put on flood plain land - Surely this rules West Horndon out. Also the financial effect this would have on our homes. I believe Basildon Council have reduced council tax on houses which were close to the Crays Hill Travellers sites but they have also lost £100,000 off their house prices. How is Brentwood Council going to respond to this please.

National guidance states that "Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of developments that would be expected of the are, responding to local character and being visually attractive" A local planning authority should also submit a plan for examination which is sound in respect of how it is prepared, whether proposals are properly justified, whether it can be delivered, and whether it is consistent with national policy. Given the level and extent of the concerns as set out above the plan clearly has fundamental shortcomings. It is not therefore sound or robust. The borough Council in consultation with the village is urged to carry out a study of West Horndon, focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport. Only after this is carried out can the plan be said to be responding to the needs of the local community.

Please rethink putting so many new homes in West Horndon and spoiling it for future generations. People who live in West Horndon have chosen a village location not a town.

I would like to object to the proposal in the Draft Plan for West Horndon. The plan states that West Horndon has good transport links, this is not correct. The A127 during rush hour is more often than not at a standstill and any large development in West Horndon can only add to this. The A127 is classed as undersized for the amount of traffic that uses it and there have been numerous consultations with regard to improving the A127 but none of which has been agreed or carried out so therefore the A127 is not adequate. The only access to the A127 from West Horndon to go towards Basildon is by Station Road. Any large development of housing would greatly increase the amount of traffic along this road and the junction with the A128. The A128 can be very dangerous due to the speed and amount of traffic which will only increase when the new container port is opened.

In Core Policies CP2c it states that development should not take place on green belt land that is used for food product or at risk of flooding. The green belt land that is north of the factory estate has all of these so I cannot see why it has been chosen for housing. West Horndon has been flooded a number of times in the past and building on this land can only increase the possibility of flooding in the future. Any flood relief scheme would increase the possibility of flooding south of the railway towards Bulphan.

The village school is over subscribed and any new housing would require children to travel to other schools. This would mean that small children currently living in West Horndon would be at a disadvantage of attending the village school and therefore would have to travel out of the village to another school as there is no local alternative school.

At present the secondary school children attending Brentwood County High School have to go by bus to the school and this school I understand to be at its full capacity, therefore where will any additional children attend school? The factory estate has been a problem to the village for sometime because it has had a change of use from manufacturing to warehousing which has increased the amount of lorry traffic through the village day and night. The lorries are quite considerable in size and during the night do not adhere to the speed limit along Station Road therefore interrupting the sleep of the occupants in Station Road. If the factory estate is not developed for housing a new road from the factory estate to the A127 would then stop the necessity for lorries to use Station Road and St Mary's Lane to get to the factory estate. Most of the occupants of West Horndon I believe would support the development of the factory estate for housing which would increase the number of dwellings within the village it would not swamp it and the number of lorries would decrease. The green belt designated for housing would swamp the village and I cannot understand why 43% of the future housing development within Brentwood area is designated for West Horndon which would change the nature of the village to the disadvantage to the existing residents.

There is mention in the report for the provision of a site for travellers. The location and size of this site is not indicated within the plan so I cannot see how any comments can be made if the information has not been provided.

The report in Justification 3.8 States [To ensure that the development takes into account long term community aspirations for the village the Council will seek a community master planning exercise to determine the precise scale, nature and siting of development and associated works] I would have thought that this should have been carried out before the Local Plan was issued so I could have commented on something that was detailed and not an outline with very little substance or detail.

I am writing to you to oppose the major development of 1500 new homes within West Horndon CP4 and the proposed traveller sites DM28. This is for the following reasons:

Impact on our chosen life
We moved to the village in 2004, being our second home and one we planned to put work into to create a family home, which we completed in 2011. We see that a village is a safe, happy and close knit community within which to raise a family alongside trusting neighbours where everyone knows everyone. Building 1500 more homes is going to destroy the village life and loose the history of the village forever and the life we chose for our family. I don't see how the Borough council has the right to do this to our lives, the one we choose and strive to achieve as hard working citizens. We will no longer live in a close knit community where we know our children will be safe. We will no longer know everyone in the area. The number of cars on our local roads will treble making the area very unsafe for our children to play as they do now. How do you have the right to change our village to a town/city this is not why we moved here.

Building on Metropolitan Green Belt
I thought that "the government attaches great importance to Green Belts to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open"

The larger part of the allocation is within green belt! I thought this was inappropriate and harmful by definition of the National Planning Guidance.
The government recently clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss.

Building on Green Belt is unacceptable and again destroying the reasons why we live here in the first place.

It is one rule for the government and a different rule for everyone else. If a member of the public just wants an extension or buy a piece of green belt to build a house it is a no go. However the government can simply put up 1500 homes where ever they like.

Impact on our property value
At the beginning of the year my neighbour said she wanted to move house, this was the ideal opportunity for us to move next door and complete another restoration project on a bigger property. We put our property on the market and we had steady viewings over the month but then my neighbour found a property to move to and had to move fast, there was cash buyer interested so she took their offer. We were always planning to stay within the village so we took our property off the market. We are now currently back on the market because of this development and gypsy site, at a lower price (£10K Less that the original valuation) as advised by the estate agent to tempt viewings under the current situation with this development notice going on. Since this planning development news and the possible traveller site news has come about we have had no interest at all in our property from perspective buyers! We have already dropped the price of our property £10k from the original valuation. What right does the government have to do something so detrimental to the value of our properties? We have put so much hard work, money, time and effort in to bettering ourselves and the future of our children's upbringing. All this will be taken away because of this housing and traveller allocation. Will we be compensated for the loss in the value of our properties?

The decision to destroy our village has obviously been made by someone who is not going to be directly affected by the decision they were making.

Impact of the Traveller sites
We don't have to look too far a field to see the impacts of the traveller sites. Buckles Lane in South Ockendon and Dale Farm Basildon are very close to home and are prime examples of what happens when the allocation of Traveller sites are located too close to open space/green belt. They soon spread into the open spaces around them with no regards to what they are doing to the land, fly tipping and general poor hygiene and disrespect for the countryside. West Horndon is not the place for traveller sites there is too much opportunity for them to take advantage of the open spaces and the way the borough are treating us residents at the moment i am sure they will have no objection to their expansion once there in! I really dont see how you expect to sell new properties along side a traveller site.

This too will have an impact on our family lives and the sociable aspect of the village as it stands today. It just will not exist anymore.

So too will it devalue our properties, are we going to be compensated for the change in value? Its already having a affect on us (as we cannot sell) and its not even here yet! We will possibly never be able to sell our properties and the whole area may become a much lower grade town with very poor community standards.

Impact on the Countryside and setting of the village.
West Horndon is a small low density settlement surrounded by countryside and the majority of which backing onto open countryside. We do not have to go far to encounter some of the extraordinary wildlife that surrounds us, Dunnock, Skylark, Kestrel, Tawny Owl, unusual butterflies and bats to name a few. All of the above are not found within towns as so will all vacate once development starts destroying their homes and the bio-diversity they bring. No consideration has been given to this!

Impact on roads and junctions
Pulling out of Thorndon Avenue onto station lane can be detrimental at the best of times without the increase in traffic from these 1500 new homes. There have been numerous occasions of near misses at this junction. On the Thorndon Avenue turning you cannot see properly around the corner because of the flats situated on the corner of the junction.

The condition of the roads are unsuitable for the planned increase in traffic. They are full of pot holes and far too narrow and of very poor upkeep to carry the increase in traffic.

At two locations along St Marys lane there are constant water seepages from underground which breaks through the road. I can only assume this is the water pipes underground. It creates huge puddles which the cars skate across causing collision issues. Several times a year these are attempted to be fixed without any success.

The junction or Station road and the A128 is always busy as it is. During rush hour times you can easily wait 10 minutes to be able to pull out onto the A128. The traffic starts to tail back along station road. This junction is already dangerous with the current flow of traffic both pull out and pulling into the village. At times I've felt like a sitting duck waiting to pull into station road which is very unnerving with children in the car. There has been many fatal accidents on this stretch of the A128 and this is going to increase the risk and completely goes against health and safety on this highway.

The proposed number of homes will also have a pollutant effect on the village's surroundings and ourselves as this will essentially mean at least another 3000 cars within the area.

Infrastructure
The infrastructure of West Horndon could not cope with an extra 1500 homes. The roads, station, bus service, schools, doctor surgery, play areas, shops, sewage, electricity supply are already not adequate enough. This comes at a time of massive cut backs from the government and I am sure the government will not throw money at this to get it right only giving the bare minimum. Or worse making the building contractor to supply the infrastructure when all they care about is profits and bottom line spending. This I am afraid to say is a recipe for a disaster for the local people, with the building contractors and MP's living in an unaffected area.

Flood Risk
Only on Christmas day 2012 the village was flooded and almost cut off. Many homes along Cardogan Avenue, St Marys Lane and Thorndon Ave were bailing out and the entrance to the church came very close. The industrial estate also flooded. So how on earth can you propose to put new homes within the village on our flood plains? The village also flooded in 1958 and 1981 and so Christmas day was by no means a first. Surely this is increasing the risk of flooding creating more concrete cities, this could create a massive safety risk by flooding the railway line. This too will have an impact on the property value and also our insurance premiums so we will be paying the price for this development. This to me does not sound like an ideal place to build a new development, I am sure the engineers and architects will say its ok to earn themselves lots of money but we will be left with the floods. I am also lead to believe we rely on a pumping station to keeping West Horndon from flooding. This would need a serious revamp.

Loss of local employment
Losing the industrial estate will mean a loss of local employment opportunities. It is not easy getting in and out of the village if you do not drive due to the current bus timetable and the train connection which although is C2C is still infrequent. So there will be possibly 4500 more people living in West Horndon and less jobs. This is just ridiculous this is going to contribute to more crime and again a lowering of the standard of living in the area with many people relying on benefits.

In conclusion I don't see how West Horndon has been pin pointed to take 43% of the boroughs allocation. Going on stats from 2011 Brentwood Borough population was 73,800 and West Horndon 1,482 of this. Having said all the above yes there is an argument that the country is growing but why not let each area grow as a percentage so not the change the village way of life. If you took an average of 3 people per home there is roughly 25,000 homes in Brentwood Borough and 500 in West Horndon. This equates to West Horndon making up 2% of the boroughs population, West Horndon should only take its fair percentage (2%) of the new housing. The new housing total for Brentwood borough is roughly 3500 so West Horndon should take its fair share (2%) 70 new houses?

No consideration has been given to the local residents who have chosen a village location. There are several detrimental effects to this proposed development for ourselves and the future generations destroying life as we know it and love it.
I hope these issues are considered seriously.

The draft plan to building 1500 new homes at West Horndon would increase the size of a small village setting to an unacceptable level and is totally disproportionate. No reason has been given as to why West Horndon has been selected to receive 43% of the total of dwellings under the proposed development plan.

I have been to the Council road shows and I asked various questions, but the Council Officers were unable or unwilling to give any answers regarding Infrastructure, time scales, Impact on West Horndon residents, Flooding etc the stock answer was "That's down to the developer".

How can we be asked to comment on a major development within our small community when we are only being presented with basic outline facts of the boundaries and location of the proposed site?

The loss of any Green belt land under this proposed development is totally unacceptable and against the government's national planning policy framework but Brentwood Council's plan suggests that green belt should be used in direct contradiction to the government's policy. Development on the green belt would have a major impact on the wildlife and the bio-diversity of the whole area and destroy the village community.

West Horndon cannot be deemed as a sustainable location due to its small size and due to its limited amenities, very few shops and no secondary school. The primary school is already at full capacity and travel to the secondary school is by school bus.

The road infrastructure in and around West Horndon will be inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic of this proposed development. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings going into London and heavy traffic Southend bound. The Proposed development traffic would have to use Station Road. If they wanted to head towards Southend, Brentwood, A13 or A128 as they would be unable to enter the A127 directly, causing traffic to queue along Station Road and blocking the junction at Station Road / A128

Plus the increased traffic using the surrounding country lanes will make the lanes dangerous.

The Railway Station at West Horndon & rail service in its present form will be unable to cope with the increased rail passengers. The number of passengers using the station at present makes you are unable to get a seat and its standing room only on rush hour services.
Probably making it impossible for people to access the trains at Upminster and beyond.

West Horndon and Bulphan are now shown on the Environment agency web site as being at risk from flooding, with the village flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2013. Any system put in place to try and elevate the flooding would put the Village of Bulphan under an increased threat of flooding.

No actual number of plots or locations of the proposed Travellers site have been given which I find unacceptable. Traveller sites bring fear of crime and disruption to the local community.

The draft plan to building 1500 new homes at West Horndon would increase the size of a small village setting to an unacceptable level and is totally disproportionate. No reason has been given as to why West Horndon has been selected to receive 43% of the total of dwellings under the proposed development plan.

I have been to the Council road shows and I asked various questions, but the Council Officers were unable or unwilling to give any answers regarding Infrastructure, time scales, Impact on West Horndon residents, Flooding etc the stock answer was "That's down to the developer".

How can we be asked to comment on a major development within our small community when we are only being presented with basic outline facts of the boundaries and location of the proposed site?

The loss of any Green belt land under this proposed development is totally unacceptable and against the government's national planning policy framework but Brentwood Council's plan suggests that green belt should be used in direct contradiction to the government's policy. Development on the green belt would have a major impact on the wildlife and the bio-diversity of the whole area and destroy the village community.

West Horndon cannot be deemed as a sustainable location due to its small size and due to its limited amenities, very few shops and no secondary school. The primary school is already at full capacity and travel to the secondary school is by school bus.

The road infrastructure in and around West Horndon will be inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic of this proposed development. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings going into London and heavy traffic Southend bound. The Proposed development traffic would have to use Station Road. If they wanted to head towards Southend, Brentwood, A13 or A128 as they would be unable to enter the A127 directly, causing traffic to queue along Station Road and blocking the junction at Station Road / A128

Plus the increased traffic using the surrounding country lanes will make the lanes dangerous.

The Railway Station at West Horndon & rail service in its present form will be unable to cope with the increased rail passengers. The number of passengers using the station at present makes you are unable to get a seat and its standing room only on rush hour services.

Probably making it impossible for people to access the trains at Upminster and beyond.

West Horndon and Bulphan are now shown on the Environment agency web site as being at risk from flooding, with the village flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2013. Any system put in place to try and elevate the flooding would put the Village of Bulphan under an increased threat of flooding.

No actual number of plots or locations of the proposed Travellers site have been given which I find unacceptable. Traveller sites bring fear of crime and disruption to the local community

1. Assuming 1500 homes have 4 people per home, that makes 6000 more people! add to that the 1800 who live here, that makes 7800.

2. then when you consider that travellers. so all in all, this isnt such a great idea.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I object wholly to the proposal of 1500 houses. West Horndon is a small village and many people live here because of that. The infrastructure we have here can no way cope with this many houses and we have spoken to c2c and there are no plans to increase the already packed trains. The roads or should I say road in and out of the village cannot cope with a possibility of up to 3000 cars running through the village let alone the building work traffic that will also pass through, this in my eyes will not make West Horndon a better place. There is also the flood issue as we are on a flood plain here as Christmas day 2012 will show you, and we pride ourselves on the green belt around us which you are wanting to take from us. What we cannot see is the benefits to the residents of West Horndon will be and what will happen to our small amount of shops, will they just end up boarded up as you are planning to build a shopping centre. This we do not want to see. This will also have a huge impact on the countryside and rural setting of the village, no consideration has been given to the wildlife and bio diversity issues. We are led to believe that the existing industrial site will be moved to Childerditch lane has any thought gone to the hundreds of people that are employed here that many of these come to work on a train or unless you are moving the train station these people will be unable to get to work maybe causing loss of employment. National guidance states that LPA should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure. water supply ,wastewater and its treatment ,energy , telecommunications , health social care, education and flood risk to meet forecast demands. This has NOT been done. We pride ourselves on our small rural village and this we want it to stay we do not want West Horndon to turn into a town which in turn could mean more crime and as there is no mention of upping the police presence this could only mean disaster. Could this also mean our house prices will drop as we wont be an exclusive small village but a town as our size could triple will the council compensate us for this and cut our council tax!!! Please don't make us a big concrete place to live surrounded by grid locked roads and keep us rural.

See attached