The green belt should be protected. ANY erosion of green belt takes something special from future generations.

Major incursion into the green belt would ruin the character of the area and we might then just as well be part of the GLC

1. The Woodland Trust is pleased to see plans to protect the green belt.

2. We would like to see absolutely protection for ancient woodland, as this is irreplaceable habitat. Ancient woodlands are our richest terrestrial wildlife habitats, with complex ecological communities that have developed over centuries, and contain a high proportion of rare and threatened species, many of which are dependent on the particular conditions that this habitat affords. For this reason, ancient woods are reservoirs of biodiversity, but because the resource is limited and highly fragmented, they and their associated wildlife are particularly vulnerable.

Their long continuity and lack of disturbance means ancient woods are often also living history books, preserving archaeological features and evidence of past land use, from earthworks to charcoal pits. They are also places of great aesthetic appeal, making them attractive for recreation and the many benefits this can bring in terms of health and well being.

With only 2.4% of the land area in Great Britain covered by ancient woodland, it is essential that no more of this finite resource is lost. This means that ancient woodland must be protected absolutely from permanent clearance, but also that it must be protected from damaging effects of adjacent and nearby land-use that could threaten the integrity of the habitat and survival of its special characteristics.

It is not possible to replace ancient woodland by planting a new site, or attempting translocation. Every ancient wood is a unique habitat that has evolved over centuries, with a complex interdependency of geology, soils, hydrology, flora and fauna.

For this reason the Trust believes ancient woodland must be given absolute protection under this plan.

The government attaches great importance to green belt. This plan to use the West Horndon Metropolitan Green belt, that is there to separate West Horndon / Brentwood from London is in direct contradiction of these views.

The destroying of green belt land is defined by National planning guidelines as inappropriate and harmful and unless exceptional circumstances, which the Government have recently clarified housing demand is unlikely to constitute such loss, is unacceptable and bordering on illegal.

Green belt land should be left as intended -GREENBELT- this will be urban sprawl not a village - traffic will be horrendous -heavy goods vehicles on already poor road a128

I strongly disagree with the amount of houses being suggested. WH is vulnerable to flooding which was proved last christmas. The increase in homes will mean an increase in surface water. The area needs to be upgraded before development begins.

The primary school will not be able to cope with extra attendees. The school will need to be rebuilt, where will these children go during this time?

The bus taking children to county high will be over capacity. This will mean parents fighting for the limited spaces. The bus service struggles to run at present, so there are no hopes of children getting on that bus.

The trains are a nightmare during the mornings at present. with no plans to upgrade this will cause major congestion for all people travelling along the C2C service.

Traveler sites will bring mess, decrease our house prices and they add nothing to society. They need to pay for their right to be there. WH should not have to pay for the mess they leave.

More people brings more crime you are changing the village to a less attractive place to live.

The metropolitan green belt needs to be protected. It is protected to stop London merging with WH and Thurrock. If you start building here, where will the building end. Thurrock will end up building the other side, how can you stop that?

The loss of business that businesses will experience will be huge. These will need to be compensated.

The sewage has always stopped development here in the future, we will need more sewage developments before this goes ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huge chunks of greenbelt land to be used to turn a once thriving village community into town like sprawl of un needed development, greenbelt should not be built on ! once this is allowed there be no greenbelt if the council can seemingly do as they please . Villages are designed that way , TOWNS ARE ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER - DO NOT USE OUR GREENBELT THIS NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED ,WHEN WILL THE COUNCIL LISTEN!

The plan proposes to increase the size of West Horndon village to accommodate for almost half of all development within the borough of Brentwood to 2030. This is completely unacceptable. Development in Brentwood should be equally distributed across the borough. It is ludicrous that 43% of new development has been assigned for the small village of West Horndon. Even more astounding is the fact that some of this development is proposed on 'Metropolitan Greenbelt land'.
Under no circumstances should any development take place on METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT. Green belt is in place to prevent urban sprawl and should stay that way.
The plan only shows location and boundaries of development. We have been consulted to comment on a major development in the village with very limited information. There are no details of housing layout, infrastructure, transport links, shops, education, health services, flood alleviation schemes, effects on natural habitats etc. The land use is not clear. There is mention of 'mixed use' land with narrow explanation as to what this means. There is mention of a traveller site with no indication of location.
The plan reasons that West Horndon development will create local jobs for Brentwood residents, how do these Brentwood residents get to work? The only access to the village from Brentwood at present is via an infrequent bus service or by car. There is no footbridge / cycle path over the A127. The train service is approaching capacity with no direct access to Brentwood town centre. Increased traffic will affect an already jam-packed rush hour A127 and A128. Access and Egress to the A127 at Thorndon Avenue is currently inadequate and dangerous.
Generally there is not enough information on the plan; there is no evidence that in depth research has been carried out on numerous factors that should be taken into account when considering a development of this size in West Horndon.
A more considerate, less destructive and accepting option would be to develop the industrial estate to new housing compliant with the existing village layout, allocating say 10-15% of Brentwood borough development to 2030 to West Horndon.

this is greenbelt land as should stay greenbelt as intended -not intended to turn villages in to urban sprawl creating heaving traffic on already over used A128 - greenbelt is protected land not for purpose of suiting council to move goalpoasts when they wish -this will be opening the gates for all greenbelt to disappear & all villages to turn in to Town thus all joining up -save our greenbelt we do not need this proposed housing & businesses in this village roads & rail can not accommodate!

the traffic is dangerous on the A127 & there are weekly accidents on a128 ,heavy traffic is already a problem which is why these areas are surrouned by6 Greenbelt I object to greenbelt being used to make a town & killing our villages - West horndon is a village & should stay a village there is no need in this area for affordable housing, when surrounding area towns have plenty - keep this greenbelt

This is greenbelt land & therefore any change to this will open the floodgates to any further usage of this that the council so wishes waking this village into a town.
Greenbelt is & should be protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have been asked to comment on a major development proposal in West Horndon village with very limited information. The plan only shows location and boundaries. Based on this limited information my comments are as follows;
I am in favour of the change of use of the industrial estate from industry to housing as long as it is in keeping with the village, i.e. having a similar layout proportion of houses and garden size etc. The transport links will have to be improved prior to any development taking place. At present the train service is running approaching capacity, there is a very poor bus service, there is no footbridge / access across the A127 and access onto the A127 is limited. Road links to the village require upgrading prior to any construction works commencing.
There will need to be an expanse in health services, education and shops which requires to be fully detailed.
West Horndon is at risk of flooding as has been seen most recently in Dec 2012, why build on an area that is at risk of flooding?
There is mention of a traveller site but no indication as to location. Further details are required on this subject.
I am greatly against development on METROPOLITAN GREENBELT LAND as greenbelt is greenbelt full stop. No further explanation required.
Overall it absolutely astounds me that Brentwood borough council have proposed West Horndon to take such a large proportion (43%) of Brentwood's future development increasing the village by threefold and therefore losing its village status.
Increase the village by 500 new houses within the industrial area? YES, increase the village by 1500 new houses? NO!!
West Horndon taking 14% of new development in Brentwood would be a much fairer and less harming percentage for all involved. Brentwood covers a large area of land and any development should be shared out across the borough equally. Earmarking West Horndon for almost half of future development to 2030 is completely unacceptable.

I would like to object to this plan for the following reasons:-
1) The risk of flood to the village and my property in general. In 2012 West Horndon flooded and it was only because of the green belt land, that you are planning to develop, being able to absorb the excess water that stopped the rest of the village suffering and if this land is then covered in concrete then there is a serious risk of the entire village flooding and serious damage being caused.
2) The A127 is at a standstill most mornings heading into London with heavy traffic going back towards Southend. If we were to add the traffic from another 1,500 homes it would be chaos and the road grid locked. Also the A128 is already close to breaking point. Add into the mixture the 1,500 new homes and this would be un-usable and plain dangerous.
3) Wildlife such as various types of birds, butterflies, amphibians
and mammals including the Tawny Owl, Red Admiral, Great Crested Newt and Pipestrelle Bats are often seen in and around the village and the construction of 1,500 houses on the edge of the village, and consequent loss of a large expanse of open countryside, will destroy its open setting and rural character and no thought has been given for these wildlife and bio-diversity issues issues.
4) The planned work would greatly increase the traffic passing through on residential roads of the village which would impact on everyone and again ruin the village.
5) With this development I and the village will suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens and loss of rural character, without any benefit.
6)The destroying of green belt land is defined by National planning guidelines as inappropriate and harmful and unless exceptional circumstances, which the Government have recently clarified housing demand is unlikely to constitute such loss, is unacceptable and bordering on illegal.
6) No thought has been given for the local residents or improvement of the local community, which is direct opposition of the The National Policy framework which says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions.
7) West Horndon is not a sustainable location. It is a small village of 1,900 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, whilst the primary school is at full capacity. There is already a 3 day wait for the doctor and a very infrequent bus service which isn't fit for purpose. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make journeys by car, the village, quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.

This preferred option will treble the size of the village and will totally change the characteristics of the village. The number of dwellings proposed is is 43% of the total for Brentwood and the only reason for this seems to be that there is existing infrastructure. There is no evidence that the existing infrastructure can cope with this increase in numbers infact the evidence that we witness on a daily basis demonstrates that this village cannot cope with an increase of this magnitude i.e. it has flooded recently (it is built on a flood plain), the station and car park is already busy it is a small village station which surrounding areas use and therefore is not of a size to support a significant increase in usage. It is also on the C2C line which goes into Fenchurch Street which has only 4 platforms. Therefore it is difficult to see how any changes could be made to the existing set up. There is one road to the A128 and this sees long delays in turning right and left and is also a regular accident hotspot. The A127 turning into Thorndon ave is not the sort of turning that should be used regularly and the A127 to both London and Southend has major traffic jams both morning and evening in both directions. It is again difficult to see how any new roads could be put in. There is one small primary school which is over subscribed and the children for senior schools have to be sent by bus to Brentwood County High. There are delays in getting a doctors appointment. We have a very limited bus service currently, however we personally I would rather have this than have 1500 houses and live in a town.
We also object to the fact that the only proposed green belt loss is in West Horndon. there is a reason that this greenbelt is there and the loss of this greenbelt will increase the flood factor and will therefore increase the risk that we will be joined to London. In addition we currently have the pleasure of seeing all sorts of wildlife in our gardens and therefore are concerned that this will be lost as part of the impact of a development of this size. We have no objection to the potential use of part of the Industrial park for some houses however cannot see why West Horndon has to take 43% of the areas total housing needs when ther are so many other areas with Brentwood that could be used. We also cannot see why some areas are not being allocated any or very small numbers when they would have some infrastructure there already. In addition there are a number of suitable areas that were being considered previously but have now been discounted. We feel that this overall proposed plan is not sustainable and will impact our lives and the lives of my children. I don't believe that there is any thought being given to the the existing villagers lives and that there is too much thought being given to developers as to where they want to build houses.

1. An allocation of 1,500 new homes would make West Horndon several times larger than it is today. It is hard to see how the character and identity could be maintained and this is not detailed by the plan. The allocation is disproportionate when compared to the size of other existing developments within the borough.

2. I would have thought that such a step change in population would require infrastructure improvements. Although the draft LDP does at least acknowledge this, it is not more than an acknowledgement and has not been considered as a constraint to the village development. An Infrastructure Development Plan is referred to as outstanding or to follow.

3. Two thirds of the new homes are proposed on green built but there is no extraordinary justification for this.I commend a plan that would stop such intrusion but would expect the plan to value this over greenbelt development and accordingly prioritise the change of use over any green belt development whilst making provision for employment areas elsewhere. I live on Station Road and already suffer from vibration and noise of heavy lorries travelling to the industrial estate day and night.
4. I have known flooding to occur in the village and understand the Environment Agency show some of the village to be at risk. I would be concerned that greenfield development could worsen this risk but the draft plan does not consider this with substantiated evidence.

The Greenbelt must be protected
Villages do not have the infrastructure to support development, nor want it.
Care should be taken to make every possible use of sites for development other than the Greenbelt.
The whole 'feel' of the Brentwood area is one which separates urban sprawl from the greenspaces and this must be protected. The whole point of people living in villages is that they tend to choose to do so simply to be surrounded by some green space and open countryside. The young must be catered but also those us who are of retirement age and don't want to live in flats, or urban surroundings, who want to remain in greenspaces.

See Attached

I would like to object to any green belt being used to build houses and flats on. Brentwoods roads are busy enough and more houses mean more traffic more congestion. I love living here due to the village feel but town facilities. Please do not turn Brentwood in to another Romford!

See attachment

(1) Reference is made to the "Policies Map" (here and elsewhere) but I can find no map identified as such either in the document or on the planning web site.

(2) Last Paragraph -10 years is far too short a life for a new barn before it may eligible for conversion to a residential dwelling and will encourage speculative barn building in Green Belt by farmers and others. The ban on development for residential purposes should be at least 50 years - when the building will be in need of refurbishment anyway.

(3) Former Landings Surgery, Outings Lane. In the light of the location and nature and style of existing surrounding dwellings, a housing a density of 40 dph is far too high at this specific location and will create hazards for road users with its proximity to Deal Tree Corner. Indeed the housing densities employed throughout this table appear arbitrary and seem to be designed more to add up to 3500 than be a realistic assessment of practical housing densities, giving a very optimistic view of the development potential of the sites listed.

See Attachment

See Atteched

see attached

On behalf of Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council I am writing to register our objection to the Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options Consultation for the following reasons;

1. Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose, amongst others, 2 significant chunks of Metropolitan greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood thus undermining the 'green ribbon' around London. Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council does not wish to go the same way as Romford, in 1964, when Havering was incorporated as a new London Borough of Havering and no longer part of Essex County Councils administrative area.

Metropolitan Greenbelt was so named because the instigators of the scheme recognised the exceptional importance of preventing London from sprawling, uncontrollably, across the Home Counties. They saw this as a unique problem due to the size of our capital and the multiplicity of Local Authorities who have a legitimate interest in its growth. It is incumbent on Planners in Essex to pay particular note to this fact and to avoid damaging our green belt at their whim.

2. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined given the original 'commitments' to it made by the post-war generation politicians who clearly envisaged situations such as this.

The proposals set a significant precedent for building on greenbelt land of which Herongate and Ingrave has.

3. Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council recommends that the current greenbelt, as set out in the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, is retained.

4. Appropriate infrastructure will not be in place to accommodate 1500 extra homes, when built, in West Horndon. West Horndon currently has around 700 homes. Facilities used by Herongate and Ingrave residents will be under increased pressure be it for Hospitals, Doctors, Dentists, Schools, roads and other services.

The proposed massive increase in the population of West Horndon will inevitably compound the problems that we already experience at peak times on the A128. The villages of Herongate and Ingrave create an inevitable ?pinch point? for this congestion. What consideration has been given to coping with the additional loading on our main road?

5. No consultation has taken place with C2C with regards to the increased usage of West Horndon train station and car park. Many residents of our villages use the train station and car park but there are no plans to increase train platform length and car park capacity that is already under strain.

6. There are no planned new secondary schools for the proposed West Horndon development. All the Brentwood secondary schools are oversubscribed and St Martin's has a planning condition not to go beyond 1805 pupils due to congestion. St Martin's is the local secondary school that most Herongate and Ingrave children go to and parents already experience significant traffic congestion during school runs.

7. The proposed movement of West Horndon's industrial premises to the designated greenbelt, as defined in the current 2005 Brentwood Local Plan, to the M25/A127 junction fails to consider public transport for workers that the current industrial site enjoys via a bus service and the regular train service some 50m away. This will increase local road traffic congestion and exclude potential workers that are unable to travel to the proposed new greenbelt industrial site.

8. The proposed Local Plan 2015-2030 acknowledges that 80% of Brentwood's growth will be from outside the borough. Clearly it does not serve the needs of local Brentwood Residents to build on greenbelt land increasing demand on existing, under pressure, services. There are absolutely no guarantees that new housing will meet local demand and that much of this will not be bought for financial investment as part of the buy to let phenomenon.

9. Albeit the proposals are to build on Grade 3 farmland this is still a loss of food production for a country that is unable to feed itself without importation. Building on existing farmland is dangerous and exacerbates the inability for UK to feed itself. This, potentially, affects everyone.

10. In the event that any new West Horndon development is flooded other Brentwood Borough taxpayers are likely to have an increase in Council Tax to pay for improved flood defences.

See Attached

See attached