Once you start building in Green Belt land it will be the trend for the future as the population will always be increasing so there will be more demand for building houses.

A small village like Blackmore can accommodate small developments but a large development of new housing would not be suitable. We have no Sunday or evening buses, only one small shop and post office. A school that is not very big and has no room for expansion. The traffic through Blackmore has increased considerably and there is a parking problem already. Blackmore is a lovely village, once spoilt there is no going back!

S1 2.15 We wish to object that Blackmore has been classed as a larger village meaning the Borough would consider it offers the most scope for development. Although we have a small primary school, there are very limited number of shops (definitely not a parade), no health facilities and public transport is very poor. The facilities are very limited and would not be sufficient to cater for the any large development. We would therefore consider Blackmore should be in settlement category 4 2.16 Smaller Villages.

CP10 Greenbelt
We strongly object to Blackmore being excluded from the Greenbelt as we feel it is a perfect example of an unspoilt rural village that should be protected as stated in section 3.37

See attached

See attached

I'm writing to express my deep concerns over the Council's Local Development Plan which has identified West Horndon as an area for 'significant growth'. West Horndon is a small village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself; the Ward has no more than 701 homes. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and completely change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment.

The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the LDP's plans being a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station but the station platform has already been extended and C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, and no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use. The trains are already busy leaving West Horndon at rush hour. The station has only 1 platform going into London. With so many new people to the village and quite probably using the trains, the safety of passengers piling onto one platform for trains that run at best, every 15 minutes would be questionable.

The LDP also talks about the aim to increase employment within Brentwood and once someone steps on the West Horndon line they immediately leave the borough and take their money and income elsewhere. We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly from West Horndon and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen this road any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only exacerbate the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. It can sometimes take 30-45 minutes to reach Brentwood and with such a poor bus service connecting us to Brentwood many residents shop elsewhere or travel by train to other towns and again leave the borough. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

Our secondary school children have no choice but to attend schools across Brentwood, by increasing the number of houses in this village you are asking secondary schools to increase their intake or find places for our children in locations beyond reasonable travelling distances. They have to travel by bus through Ingrave at the moment and more children will only increase the already heavy traffic through this area.

The local Primary school is already at full capacity and many of the families in the village moved to the village in order to give their children a more family centred schooling experience. Almost all of the children walk to school and there are very strong links between the families and accountability between them and the school. It is the reason most of our family have moved to the village. Trebling the size of the village would most definitely destroy this level of accountability. This is the character of West Horndon and I fear this level of development would ruin this.

Infrastructure will not be in place before the build starts and the LDP does not make it clear how this will appear or what will be provided. For the local Primary school this means having no choice but to take new children that move into the area before any funds and infrastructure can be put into place to expand it. There is a risk current families in the village will therefore not be able to get their children a place at the local school if they happen to live further from the school than the new houses. How is this fair? Without the sale of houses and a clearer picture of numbers of children it will be impossible for the council to clearly see what level of development the school will need. This will impact upon the education of our own children because class sizes will increase and teaching space will be reduced. Teachers will have no choice but to divide their attention between more children and this will inevitably affect the quality of teaching our children receive. No guarantees have been made to protect this or the future children who the school are forced to take because other local schools cannot accommodate them. Or families will have to travel to other local schools, which defeats the idea that most if not all the children walk to school and will only increase the level of traffic through Station Road.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctors appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood, a long journey during rush hour or roadworks particularly if it is an emergency. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? By trebling the size of the village the doctors surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increase of these numbers. No plans have been made available to show how this will improve. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is frankly unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 and A128 are already inadequate to deal with more traffic, which 1500 would certainly provide. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen the road. With 1500 homes being built in the village I seriously worry about the possibility of increased accidents and increased pollution and damage to the environment caused by more cars sitting in traffic jams on these already busy roads.

I am also very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. The fields above this area act as a soak for the waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which in itself has recently with heavy rain flooded many times (Removing the threat of flooding for many residents east of these field). Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The NPPF makes it very clear that no development should in any way impact upon other areas, which it most surely would. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. The Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land extending 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents backing onto these areas. Many residents including my parents who moved in this year in June are finding it extremely difficult to get buildings insurance because of existing flood risks and 1500 homes would most definitely increase this risk and I can't see how any of the new houses on the Greenbelt fields will get buildings insurance with the knowledge of existing flood risks. How can you responsibly build homes to sell knowing that insurance companies will not provide needed insurance to get a mortgage? There is no evidence that the council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be significant and it does seem ridiculously unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and no other. Why has a small village being allocated almost half of the total number of houses required in the Borough? Why has Ingatestone not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon that also runs into London? Both Brentwood town and Shenfield are getting 1000 homes and Ingatestone receives 130 homes and that's it?! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that as they have a station that they also receive a fair share of the allocation of houses. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land, however recent clarifications have made it clear that housing demand is unlikely to constitute justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I would like to see the Timmermans nursery on the A127 considered as an alternative site. Land which is Greenbelt, but already being used for another purpose. Why is the Hutton Industrial Estate not being put forward as a Brownfield site suitable for development, much like West Horndon Industrial Estate it has some privately owned areas and others that are not. Hutton Industrial Estate much like our own Industrial Estate also runs through compact residential areas and sees large trucks travelling by residents homes, which I'm sure they see as an annoyance. This would seriously impact upon the need to redevelop Greenbelt areas.

I am also deeply concerned about the lack of communication with residents over this period and the simple suggestion that this plan has incorporated residents' views. From when? I am not aware of 1 resident who was in any way fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LDP statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback!

The construction of such a huge number of houses on the edge of our village will destroy its open setting and rural character. The qualities that so many of the residents love about our village will be obliterated. We moved to West Horndon to live in a village, surrounded by open countryside. Your plan apprears to have fundamental shortcomings and goes against so many points noted in national guidance and the planning framework.

As my 8 year old son asked yesterday, 'Why would they want to build so many houses in a nice little village?'.

See attachment

See attached

Major Development West Horndon
The preferred Options Document published by The Borough Council, propose a massive development of the local village, an increase we are told of some 43% of the requirement for the whole of Brentwood!!
If such a plan takes place it will obviously alter 'The Village' beyond recall, its status as a village Will be gone, it would in all probability make it a small unattractive town similar to others that litter the Essex landscape. All that is shown is a shaded area of the proposed site, with the comment that plans of the infrastructure are forthcoming.
So resident are expected to come up with an opinion upon a proposal of an extra 1500 houses and some Traveller sites (how many, how knows?), with nothing as yet about the infrastructure to support this new community.
The Local Planning Authority it would seem have not done their homework upon this matter, because certain factors are apparant event to a layman such as myself which would guide one to the opinion that the plan has been hastily put together with absolutely no consideration for its obvious flaws Some examples are listed below.
1. It is a well established/published fact that West Horndon and Bulphan are at risk of flooding,
As previous history shows. Even last Christmas, Cadogan, Thorndon Ave and part of Childerditch were flooded, there was even flood water cascading across the A127 near the Half Way House - the last event happens almost annually. If your local authority have no evidence of this perhaps they should look in the local papers where it generally featured. As the whole area is upon a downhill slope from Brentwood etc, its is hardly surprising that there is a lot of flooding in the area. Another visual annual site of flooding is Childerditch and onward to Dunnings Lane which necessitates frantic digging of ditches and road repairs to allow the Buses through. All this notwithstanding the excessive flood water that is being passed onto Bulphan. It could be that they may take exception to this new development which would almost certainly make their village even damper that it is a present, with the likely hood of higher flood insurance to follow.
With regard to the drains/sewage etc, within the last year my immediate neighbor/the lady across the road and myself, plus a least a couple of other people in our road, have been faced with the unedifying results of blocked drains. There was also a lady (at a meeting) from another part of the village who had a similar problem (which our local councilor was going to sort out.)
Some time back there was a major problem at the top of Thorndon Ave, where small sewage pipes had been fitted in arror/or cost cutting measure, causing a most unsavoury smell. These problems should addressed before the proposed a hair brain scheme is entered into.
2. The use of the Industrial site for housing is probably a good idea, for the larger and larger juggernauts passing through 'The Village' destroying the inadequate road surfaces and in many cases the pavements. It seems it is now a 24 hour event, many of these vehicles and private cars use Station Road as a by pass for the A127 that gets gridlocked (during rush hour) just past 'The Village' on the way to London. They are also often exceeding the speed limit, but we no longer have a policeman to check them!!
Our roads are barely adequate for the existing traffic, how on earth would it copes with another 1500 households, plus cars, it beggars belief. Assuming that 50% are car users how would they exit/enter the Village, via CHilderditch Land (too small), via industrial site entrance, would almost result in chaos around the Railway Station, for more buses will be there also.

It should be pointed out that the Bus Company at present has to make arrangements to use Railway Property to turn around. It is also a fact the Council Garbage truck, can only enter Thorndon Ave one way as there is no room to maneuver.
The railway bridge would to strengthened and widened.
3. Rush hour travel by train is already a nightmare, increase in volume of passengers can only worsen matters, some arrangement would have to be sorted out with the Rail Company.
4. There are very few shops here, saints preserve us from an influx of Super Markets and the like of fast food outlets and betting shops, and the obvious decline; mainly due to littering - we seldom see the Road Sweeping Vehicle (A rare species hereabouts)
5. There no secondary school will one get build?, or more schools buses provided?
6. Our Broadband connection is probably the worst in the country, this needs to be rectified.
7. I have noticed that only West Horndon and Shenfield have been listed for use of Green Belt sites for this plan, which is contrary to Central Government Plans; Shenfield get parking spaces, West Horndon get 1500 houses, surely an anomaly here!!!!
The logic of this is that if you can release Green Belt (METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT in the case of West Horndon,) Then you could apply the same rule throughout Brentwood, (Or the country at large) thereby removing any objections to any development of any kind, would you with to setting a legal precedent, or are you just chancing your arm hoping to get this through unopposed. Whatever your answer it si truly an ill thought out concept, with no consideration of the impact it will have upon the residents and area, or environment.

CONCLUSION
There have previously been numerous plans to build houses hereabouts, almost all have faltered upon the fact that the area is a flood plain and subject to flooding at various times of the year (West Horndon and Bulphan). With regard to Bulphan IT would be stupid to increase their risk of flooding and litigation that may follow by using ill considered planning scheme.
The infrastructure would need to be put in place before any new houses are built also a renewal of existing services, the cost of this would be prohibitive with road widening etc for the present system just about copes, plus all the other items mentioned above.
Over recent times West Horndon has been ill served by Brentwood Council, they have tried to move u s on to become part of Havering or Billericay instead without success. Or will you now deny this? Since out Councillor Roy Boggis departed this life, our voice goes almost unheard in the Council Offices, our present representative we were told was on the Planning Committee, but claimed not to know anything of the plans for West Horndon, thus our Parish Council was suddenly confronted by this new planning scheme out of the blue.
Our police presence has been reduced to a phone, line, speeding traffic is increasing as there is now no check upon this.---A matter of time before a serious accident occurs. The street cleaning vehicle has become an endangered species, as are those who cut verges etc.
Is this purely Political Plan, for West Horndon has never really been favoured by Brentwood Council, almost an uwanted entity indeed, also by placing such a burden upon it would lose but a few votes come election time. Putting such a number of house elsewhere in the borough would certainly impact upon the vote.
Perhaps you may consider this cycnical view, but it could easily fir the abject planning scheme so far proposed, the next move I suspect will be a reduction in the number of houses, to give the impression of leniency, then a hurried and railroaded plan for the remainder.
Having voted in all types of elections for nearly 60 years am always dubious of the words of all political voices.

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.

I would like to set out in writing my strong concerns regarding the proposed development of West Horndon. The proposed number of houses to be developed in the area - 1500, triples the size of the current village, most of which would be built on Metropolitan Green Belt land. We should be protecting our countryside. By developing on our green belt land you would be setting a dangerous precedent. National guidance states that only for exceptional circumstances should green belt be lost and I don't believe additional housing would be included as an exceptional circumstance.

Our neighbouring roads are already at full capacity. Travelling to London on the A127 is already at breaking point, even outside of rush hour times. If there is a slight problem on the A128 into Brentwood, the route comes to a standstill. The road cannot be widened. Therefore residents would be more likely to take their business outside of the borough - to Thurrock or Romford or Basildon.

Our Doctors and Primary school are already at full capacity. The bus service is infrequent. Our train station has no direct route to Brentwood. C2C have no intention of expanding the station or adding more trains to the current timetable for West Horndon. Therefore, an already busy station will be at breaking point.

As shown at Christmas 2012, West Horndon is a flood risk. Surely building further on the surrouding land would be irresponsible unless a lot of money could be ploughed into addressing the risk and being certain that you aren't pushing the problem onto our neighbouring areas.

We moved here to be part of a village and very much enjoy the close, community life that this affords us. You would be completely transforming our homes and forcing upon us a town that we didn't buy into.

Station Road is already a busy road. This development on such a large scale would be forcing a huge amount of additional traffic down Station Road,a residential street which many children use to get to school. The local communities are the ones that will suffer the increased traffic, loss of rural character and without any discernible benefits.

What impact will this development have on our countryside? What consideration has been given to the variety of wildlife that currently exists?

I understand change is a way of life and we all have to accept some element of development to our communities, but what you are proposing is ill thought out and will have a detrimental impact not only to the current villagers but to those in the neighbouring areas too. Loss of the brownfield site (the industrial estate) would cut out the huge lorries that fly down station road and so for many in the village this could be seen as quite beneficial. However an additional 500 houses is still a huge change for the village and services will need to be improved. In particular, as well as an alternative access route to the new site to alleviate some of the traffic down station road, I would also like to see a bigger doctors surgery with a proper pharmacy for the more elderly people in the village. To help link West Horndon to Brentwood more closely I would also like to see a bridge put over the a127 so people in the village can more easily get to Ingrave/Herongate/Thorndon Park and ultimately Brentwood. The village would also benefit greatly from a community centre to provide more services to both the young and the elderly.

I do believe very strongly in preserving our green belt land and can't see how building houses on our green belt can be seen as anything but harmful.

The proposed development would treble the size of this village and therefore would not be in accordance with the Forward in your Consultation Document that states, "it can do the most good and least harm". Since this enormous amount of building would effectively ruin the village at it stands and make it into a Town, all it shows is that no one has done any research in this whole affair.

It goes on to state "it should have good access to facilities, such as Healthcare. Parks, schools, shops and public transport. The facilities that we now enjoy are only sufficient for the 500 or so dwellings that we currently enjoy and would in no way be adequate for any further buildings.

The Forward also states that the Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected yet, you aim to remove the Metropolitan Green Belt which is the only thing separating us from the further sprawl of outer London.

No evidence is put forward as to the infrastructure that is proposed except to say that it might be forthcoming. I hope that this will include water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, and social care of which we are great need. Education for future Nursery, Junior and Senior schools and the ever present flood risk while Brentwood fail to protect us from the water that flows directly down from Brentwood on occasions and floods the A127, is then pumped out onto our surrounding fields and floods parts of the village.

The Borough Council is therefore attempting a consultation on a proposal which is at best poorly researched, and premature in terms of an evidence base. Too little regard has been given to the local community in which you hope to ease your housing requirements by foisting some 43% onto us.

West Horndon is a small village with a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has few shops, no secondary school and is 5 miles from any large centre. The primary school is full to capacity and there is a limited amount of days when we actually have a doctor on site. The railway station has already built the station platform to its full capacity and put on 12 compartment trains. Still the trains are difficult to board in the rush hour.

I urge you to carry out a consultation with the village in order to carry out a study of West Horndon focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport, you may then change your mind about building 1,500 extra houses here subjecting future populations to lack of transport besides a car and, any other facility that we have all come to rely on.