9.10

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22204

Received: 04/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher Garside

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

At 06:30 in the morning the A127 is crawling with traffic London bound. The link roads to the A13 are insufficient to carry traffic via that route. Trains through West Horndon are already full at 07:00 in the morning. No additions to infrastructure are stated in the plan.

Change suggested by respondent:

Put the infrastructure in first.

Full text:

At 06:30 in the morning the A127 is crawling with traffic London bound. The link roads to the A13 are insufficient to carry traffic via that route. Trains through West Horndon are already full at 07:00 in the morning. No additions to infrastructure are stated in the plan.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22334

Received: 17/03/2019

Respondent: Miss Caroline May

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I object to this statement as Dunton Hills Garden Village site is not sustainable due to the size of the development. This is not sustainable due to the proposal being in a high flood risk area with no proper plan in place to mitigate against future flooding. It is also not sustainable in terms of infrastructure. The road network can not cope with current levels of traffic, let alone a development of this size. How this could reasonably be accommodated has not been evaluated. The rail network again can not cope with this size of development area. Generally the environmental impact is huge.

Change suggested by respondent:

The proposed development on this site the is simply too large. It is trying to focus significant build all in one area where it it not feasible to do so for some very practical reasons.

Full text:

I object to this statement as the site is not sustainable due to the size of the development. This is not sustainable due to the proposal being in a high flood risk area with no proper plan in place to mitigate against future flooding. It is also not sustainable in terms of infrastructure. The road network can not cope with current levels of traffic, let alone a development of this size. How this could reasonably be accommodated has not been evaluated. The rail network again can not cope with this size of development area. Generally the environmental impact is huge.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22584

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Sasha Millwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

I do not want any reduction in Green Belt Boundaries ever. Not now, not in the next Plan period. According to the NPPF, the Green Belt is supposed to be "permanent". Making such a massive reduction would set a precedent for the Green Belt being regarded as a "managed reduction in green space" rather than a "permanent" amenity.

Previous consultations have shown an overwhelming majority against any development of this sort.

Change suggested by respondent:

Eliminate proposal for Dunton Hills Garden Village.

Full text:

I do not want any reduction in Green Belt Boundaries ever. Not now, not in the next Plan period. According to the NPPF, the Green Belt is supposed to be "permanent". Making such a massive reduction would set a precedent for the Green Belt being regarded as a "managed reduction in green space" rather than a "permanent" amenity.

Previous consultations have shown an overwhelming majority against any development of this sort.