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

Proposed building of 1500 homes at West Horndon, Essex

I am writing this letter to register my opposition to the proposed scheme. My reasons are as follows:

1. Consultation
The scheme you have proposed has no substance. How can anyone give a reasoned response when most of the information is not available in the report? i.e. Its 'Pie in the Sky'
2. Infrastructure
a. Roads - It is obvious to anyone who visits the village that the roads are inadequate for the present needs and are badly maintained
b. Rail - The present rail service is fully used and at full capacity. I am told that there is only standing room on the trains to Fenchurch Street from 0630 hours
c. Buses - I know nothing about the bus services so I cannot give a view.
d. Health Services - At present there is an adequate Doctor and hospital presence locally. Additional population will overload the system. The aging population of West Horndon will progressively need health care and, as such, the present services will be stretched.
e. Sewage - The present sewer system can barely cope. When heavy rainfalls many gardens/houses are flooded with sewage.

3. Location
a. Village Status - The area has approximately 700 homes and the addition of another 1500 homes will, in effect, make it into a town [With no centre and no soul]
b. Metropolitan Green Belt - I find it impossible to understand why it is necessary to erode this protected area when there must be other areas available. WASN'T THE GREEN BELT CREATED TO STOP URBAN SPRAWL?
c. Flood Danger - I understand that the area of Metropolitan Green Belt designated is a 'Fail Safe' area to protect West Horndon from flooding i.e. It's a flood plain, Should remedial action be taken, one assumes that Bulpham will be flooded and not West Horndon!!!
d. Employment - It is quite likely that the new arrivals will seek employment in London, with no benefit to Brentwood.
e. Wildlife - I believe that large colonies of wildlife, birds, small animals etc will be effected by building on the Green Belt site.

4. Fairness
a. It seems a large number of homes have been allocated to West Horndon i.e. 43%
b. Based on the 'Local Plan'and the locations shown in the local paper, it would appear that not many homes are proposed north of Brentwood. WHY!!!
c. It also appears that NO HOMES are proposed in Shenfield!!! WHY!!! It will have Cross-Rail and, one assumes, a large influx of people wishing to live there.
d. Most villagers feel that West Horndon is being taken for a ride.

5. Travelers
a. The treat of having 'travellers sites' in the village has acted as a sort of blackmail. Travellers sites cannot be sites on flood plains, therefore let the council build on the industrial site and only leave flood plain sites so no travelers will come to the village. Shame on you for using this tactic!
b. NO information is being given with your proposals regarding the travelers sites. How can West Horndon feel that their future is in good hands when you are so devious?

6. Industrial Site
a. The nebulous plan to relocate the industrial site north of the A127 relies again on using a Green Belt designated area.
b. Are all the tenants from the industrial area agreeable to move?

Conclusion:
1. Should any of the proposed work be carried out it will be detrimental to the well being of the people you are supposed to represent, West Horndon residents
2. With such an un-informed, weak, and badly though out plan are you, fpr some reason, attempting to adopt. I cannot see that this has any professional input and, if it is so, political pressure must have been brought to bear. Are you doing your job or are you getting your constituents to do it for you?
3. It is generally accepted in the village that some houses will be built. The 'brownfield' site would seem to be the most suitable, but, saturation of that site will also bring problems.
4. If your previous record is anything to go by in West Horndon, the supporting infrastructure required for these houses, and to supplement the present population, will not be provided. Promise, Promise, Promise.

In the hope that you take account of my views, though I won't hold my breath

Yours truly,

See attached response.

We have noted the Brentwood Local Development plan for 2015-2030 and that there is a recommendation for new housing in Outings Lane on the combined site of the former Doctors Surgery and The Landings.

Unfortunately we are unable to attend the local meeting in Doddinghurst on Thursday September 5th due to a planned vacation. If there are capabilities to join the meeting via audio or Skype then we would be happy to participate.

Nevertheless we have comments on the proposals as follows:
The former doctors surgery has now been demolished and we understand that the sale of The Landings has been agreed with a single owner securing title for the strip of green belt land next to Barfield Farm, the former doctors surgery as well as The Landings. Figure 1 shows the current plot in question outlined in red. Figure 2 shows the current demolished state of the former doctors surgery. Figures 3 and 4 are from the Brentwood Local Development Plan which suggests 11 dwellings for the site of the former surgery and The Landings which occupies 0.27 hectares. We understand from Figure 3 that Brentwood Council is not including the strip of green belt in the current planning proposal.

We have absolutely no objection to redevelopment of the site; clearly it would be beneficial to do so. To construct residential homes on the site is also a sensible solution. Our concern however is on the number of dwellings proposed, what type of dwellings are proposed and especially for the provision of sufficient parking for those homes. In December 2012, outline planning approval for two detached homes on the site of the former surgery was approved (Fig 5). This is the type of construction that is sensible for the area and we would be delighted to support.

Outings Lane consists of relatively large individual detached residential properties. It would be inkeeping with the surrounding properties in Outings Lane to construct similar types of large detached properties. With this in mind, then a proposed construction of 11 properties becomes infeasible and a concern because of the quantity of available land. Being open, honest and quite selfish for a minute we confess we are keen to encourage that redevelopment of the site does not risk devaluing the properties in Outings Lane including our own. Figures 6 shows a mock up indicating that 8 homes could be built on the site but would have limited garden and parking facilities.

When the doctors surgery was in operation, there was always a problem with increased traffic and parking in Outings Lane due to the number of people visiting the surgery exceeding the available parking. This led to parking down Outings Lane which occasionally made it difficult to get onto our drive if vehicles had been parked poorly. Unless sufficient provision is made for parking within the new developed site then we are faced with the prospect of returning to those days which we are keen to avoid. To address the parking issue please can homes be built assuming accommodation and allocation of a minimum of two vehicles per property with the parking space/ garage sufficiently large to accommodate modern sized vehicles and thus avoid the parking situation at Widbrook, which is at the bottom of Outings Lane where vehicles are parked on the pavement to ensure the road is not obstructed (see figure8 9 and 10).

In summary we have no objection to redevelopment of the former doctors surgery site. Our recommendation and preference would be to construct a small number of similar sized homes to the existing detached family homes at the top end of Outings Lane which are inkeeping with the surrounding propreties. We recommend that each is constructed with a garage and off street parking for a minimum of two modern sized vehicles per property.

See attached response.

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

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

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

See Attached.

With reference to your plans for the development of West Horndon.

This development must have been some few years in planning Why is it, none of the villagers were consulted at the very beginning of your plans, along with the farmers who green belt fields you need. It seems to us you have no understanding or indeed care, about the villagers or villages and there environment. Incredible, considering through our Council Tax we pay, indirectly for the planners.

You are ignoring, the safe guards of Metropolitan Green Belt. You are ignoring the very big risk of flooding. You are most certainly ignoring the residents of West Horndon.

If these unrealistic plans go forward, we the residents, will endure 15- years of development, or to put it another way 15- years of a building site. Is it not the case the Council Planning Department, assume that we will have to just accept these plans. I'm absolutely positive you will try to push these plans through regardless of our wishes.

We are an attractive village, its a great place to live, and its a great place to raise a family, and its a great place to retire. Has there been no consideration to this.

We are totally against these plans for the Development of West Horndon and respectfully ask, you the planners to take into account our wishes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalization and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalisation and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.

I feel that the Local Development Plan proposed for West Horndon (CP4) is unachievable. The larger proportion of the housing allocation in CP4 is on land proposed by Brentwood Council is part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Metropolitan Green belt was put in place to prevent the merging of neighbouring areas, which in the case of West Horndon are Greater London and Thurrock. The National Planning Policy Framework states that: "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

The land proposed for development in CP4 has been identified as an area at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency Website. The village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. Any building within an area at risk of flooding will increase the water table, thus increasing the risk of flooding. If a flood alleviation scheme is put in place this will simply move the water to South of the Railway towards the village of Bulphan. There is no evidence of Brentwood Borough Council carrying out any assessment of drainage within West Horndon or Bulphan.

The infrastructure of the village is already at breaking point, with access onto the A127 and into Brentwood along with A128 at rush hour, regularly near impossible. The additional traffic from the extra housing will further add delays and problems to these roads. The train station is also at capacity with there often being no available seating once trains reach West Horndon. C2C have stated they have no plans to increase the frequency of trains or the number of carriages on each train. There is no evidence within the LDP that the infrastructure has been considered.

Although I am not opposed to some development within West Horndon, I feel that the number of houses proposed will destroy the village and create a unsustainable development with insufficient infrastructure, health care and education facilities. The doctor's surgery is currently at capacity as is the primary school. The proposed delevopment does not include any provision for additional health care or educational facilities. The National Planning policy states that the community should be involved in all aspects of planning decisions. With regard to Brentwood council's proposed LDP there has been no engagement with either West Horndon Parish council or the community other than the Roadshow which happened after the proposed LDP was announced.

In conclusion, I feel that with regard to CP4 of the LDP, Brentwood Council's plans are deeply flawed. The decision to place 1000 houses on land which is in risk of flooding is bordering on the insane. This land is also protected as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt which should be protected at all costs. There are limited resources within the village and there is no evidence within the LDP that these are likely to be improved, despite the proposed increase in population. The infrastructure of the village is currently under huge strain with regular delays into Brentwood and along the A127 at peak times and the train station and service will not be improved. It is clear that Brentwood Council's proposal for increasing housing on this site is not sensible or well thought out.

RE: Ingatestone Nursery Housing Development

It is with deep regret that we read of the proposed size of development on the Ingatestone Nursery site, which backs on to our garden. Firstly I feel frustrated that I knew nothing of the meeting at St Johns, Mountnessing on 2nd September. We had no flyer of such a meeting and neither did two of our neighbours. One may question whether this was a deliberate act.

We appreciate that housing must be built but the number of dwellings seems unrealistic. This is a piece of green belt land regardless of the now attached label of 'brown field'. You will be aware that the building of fifty-two or so dwellings on the old Heybridge Hotel site car-park resulted in a crammed development where parking now spills constantly on to Roman Road as the residents have no room to park near their properties, in fact you can hardly drive along the roads on that estate.

The nursery was a thriving concern and all residents are fully aware that it has been deliberately run-down to appear that it is a loss making business. The building of this number of properties on such fields and gardens seem unnecessarily large in proportion to the current number of houses in our road. Will there be flats that will spoil the semi- rural aspect of the area? Will they overlook our currently un-overlooked gardens? Who cares?

The busy A12 and the London to Norwich train line creates two boundaries and the third is the Civic Amenities Site! Additional car traffic created through the building of that number of houses will undoubtedly increase noise and pollution. We have a current serious problem with surface water in Burnthouse Lane and this can only be exacerbated by further concrete and road surfaces. Exiting onto the A12 slip road may also be a severe problem.

A friend of mine who attended the meeting on 2nd September reported that one Brentwood Council Official stated that the development would go ahead regardless of any objections; this has obviously made people very frustrated and angry. It is interesting that such proposal developments never take place in Mill Green or such areas.

Our concerns are density, height, pollution, noise and flooding. Fundamentally our greatest objection is the taking of green belt land to build housing. Green belt is a highly regarded barrier between development and space. We look forward to hearing from your offices.

Yours faithfully

I write with reference to the above development as a business at Horndon Industrial Estate; Business Name: Charles H. Fox Ltd.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development on the following
grounds:

1. Firstly, having purchased this brand new building only five years ago, I am now very concerned as to why Brentwood Council would give planning permission for a development of 10 new warehouses, only to threaten the owners with demolition after such a very short period of time. I was granted a 999 year lease and obviously expected to stay in situ for many, many years.
Brentwood Council MUST have known of this proposed development before my warehouse was built.

2. My decision to purchase in West Horndon was based mainly upon the following reason:
Location: As a resident of WH since 1967 I have chosen my staff carefully from the many people I know in WH. At present I employ 7 full-time staff (including myself) who live in WH. Three other long standing staff use the train to get to WH. We also have a shop in London and easy access to the London premises is essential. We very seldom drive as this is so time consuming and very expensive.
The staff in London also need easy access to the warehouse for many various reasons, hence purchasing a warehouse near to a main line station. Your proposal to re-deploy this estate near the M25 junction 29 is totally unsuitable for my staff and will have a detrimental effect on my business and staff. So much so that if the final outcome were to be compulsory purchase, it is extremely unlikely that we would go to the proposed new sit or remain in Brentwood.

3. Employment: Charles Fox Ltd., and many of the other businesses on the estate rely heavily on local residents for staffing and a huge number of staff use the train to get to and from work. Moving to the M25 will be very time consuming and expensive for existing staff who cannot afford cars. Aren't the local councils supposed to encourage local employment, not destroy it. There has been a working estate in West Horndon for many, many years and it has always provided employment for the villagers. My sister's first job was on the estate and my Mother also worked part-time on the other estate. For young people and Mum's doing part-time work, those who cannot afford or do not want to drive or those who also cannot afford the very high cost of travelling to work by train, this estate provides much needed employment.

Brentwood Council simply MUST consider this very important aspect in their consultations.

Another point on employment, 1500 new homes, must they all have cars or have to take the train, both very expensive, isn't it better to provide MORE work locally? Local employment must NOT be lost.

4. The Estate: This estate is extremely well run, clean, used, infact a very nice busy community in itself.
The Council MUST consider building the new houses elsewhere.

5. Village traffic: It is hardly surprising that the villagers who live in Station Road would be happy to see the Industrial Estates close, the noise they have to put up with during the night is excessive. This could have been easily remedied if the Council had kept to their plans to make a direct access onto the A127 many years ago.

6. Traffic: My staff who drive into WH are always complaining to me about traffic jams in the A127 and are very often late to work due to this. The A127 and surrounding roads simply cannot take much more traffic and 1500 new dwellings in WH will definitely have a grave effect on traffic in the immediate area and beyond. BC MUST take this serious matter into consideration.

The National Planning Policy framework says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions.

It also says that "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential". I would not be at all surprised if many of the businesses on both Industrial Estates have not sent any objections to the proposed developments, because they have not been properly consulted. Apart from my neighbour who found out very late in the day, all the other units along my row of warehouses (8 in all) were completely unaware of these plans until I advised them. They were not made aware by yourselves or the owners of the site, who when questioned, said they new nothing of these plans. ALL businesses should have been notified by yourselves, directly, in writing.

Not to notify them, directly in writing (letters could have been put in with their new rate demands) is extremely bad policy on behalf of Brentwood Council and appears to be underhanded. You have a "Duty of Care" to your business ratepayers and this has not been adhered to.

We are writing to register our strong disagreement with the proposed development in our village. We understand that the development will consist of 1500 new homes which will increase the size of the village threefold and significantly change its character. We moved here in 1999 specifically because we wanted to enjoy a more tranquil and rural environment which is very important to us in our retirement but this development will result in something akin to a "New Town" which has very different qualities.

We understand that this proposal satisfies over 40% of the Borough's requirements for the next 20 years and we do not understand why West Horndon is being singled out in this way. A more proportionate approach would be for a larger number of other locations in the Borough accept smaller developments.

Our main concerns centre on the infrastructure that would be needed to support such a large community-details of which have not materialised. It is unacceptable that consultation is being completed without such important information and it will be impossible to give considered feedback with so little information.

Whilst the current services such as public transport, access to GP and healthcare and local shops are already stretched, we are prepared to accept this situation when it is accompanied by the more positive aspects of rural life. The major roads around West Horndon are already full during peak commuter times so the potential impact of a further 1500 cars trying to join them would simply gridlock the village.

The main route via the lanes includes a railway bridge on a bend which would not be able to cater for increases in traffic of this magnitude. We cannot envisage how this particular stretch of road could be upgraded sufficiently.

Although C2C provide an excellent service into Fenchurch Street, the trains are completely full during the rush hour and again adding a further potential 1500 passengers would decimate the service for residents of West Horndon as well as those living further into London. We do not believe there is capacity for additional trains to run therefore people will not be able to get on the train.

Health care provision is very important to us and with many residents of West Horndon being of an older generation, any reduction in service could be critical. In the event that local GP's are not forthcoming, we will be forced to take to the roads and overstretched public transport to find such services.

We understand that much of the development will be on green belt land again this will completely change our environment. We have taken a very active role in restoring and maintaining the green spaces around the village and to work so hard for this benefit whilst great swathes of it are taken without proper consideration and consultation with the local community is unacceptable.

We would summarise our objections as follows:
We have been given insufficient information to have a meaningful consultation and therefore the council has failed to follow government guidelines on planning, in the absence of such information, we have grave concerns over whether a proper and extensive assessment has been carried out on behalf of West Horndon residents.

We are concerned that West Horndon has been singled out as an easy solution to the entire Borough's housing needs for many years to come .

We believe the environment of village will be significantly damaged by the loss of green belt land and the stress that will be placed on local transport and road links.
Access to sufficient healthcare services for the many people of our age group in West Horndon could be critically undermined.

We would strongly urge you to carry out a proper study of these proposals and demonstrate clearly and fairly how the community as a whole will benefit. At this point, we would be in a position to carry out meaningful consultation.

West Horndon is a small village community and the preferred option will be a major development alongside it which will triple the size of the village and would change its character. The village has 750 properties and the proposal is to add 1,500 additional dwellings. I disagree, this is too many dwellings and will not benefit the village but only the developers. It will leave the borough council and village with many problems to sort out and pay for in the future.

The Doomsday book mentions the village of West Horndon. The scale of the development proposed is major and disproportionate, and does not seem to enhance the village but create an new separate village to one side.

An infrastructure delivery plan and flood risk assessment needs to be carried out before deciding to build any new dwellings in West Horndon. The public transport to the rest of the borough is poor and unreliable. The primary school is at full capacity and there is no secondary school in the village. The doctors surgery is at full capacity and takes several days to get an appointment. It would be good if additional resources could be made available to have the doctors surgery open before 9am and after5pm and on Saturdays. The broadband is poor and it would be good, essential indeed to have fibre optic broadband available in the village. We don't have a dentist, an optician, a chiropractor or a podiatrist. The village probably doesn't need permanent health care practitioners beyond a doctors, but it would be good to have easy available access to these. Especially for the older community.

The consultation exercise on a draft, premature proposal which needs more evidence before we can really feel properly consulted upon.

This plan and the consultation process feels to me to be done from the Council and planners down to the local residents of West Horndon. The local community needs and wishes need to be heard and acknowledged. I do not want building to take place on the proposed plot of 037. It is green belt and the only boundary to is the A127.

If West Horndon needs to accept additional properties in the village they should be built on brown field areas such as the West Horndon Industrial Estate. Other areas in the village are Elliott's night club former plot. and possibly Timmermam's nursery nearby on the 127. Development should be low density and tasteful in keeping with the village.

Other locations for development to be considered are: Hutton Industrial Estate, Waits Way Industrial Estate, Ingatestone garden centre. Also for north of the borough groups of houses with independent sewage system could be built, such as those in St Marys Lane.

I do not support building on metropolitan green belt, but if green belt land in West Horndon needs to have building then I might agree to building along Station Road if the park was extended behind the dwellings to provide a boundary. The extended and improved park would provide safe areas for walking in the dark winter evenings and could provide an exceptional benefit the village.

To enhance West Horndon it would also need a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; additional money and resources to allow the village hall to run classes and events after work hours; a completely upgraded bus service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood to access opticians, dentists, etc; the doctors surgery would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and on Saturdays.

The village is made up of a low density housing and surrounded by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years with oil seed rape, wheat and peas and provide food for the UK. Building on that green belt will reduce the land available for wildlife, loss of ancient hedgerows and borders, and will destroy the rural character of the village.

If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows were unable to give further information on the dwellings proposed and we would like an opportunity to feed into this. Delivery times to proposed new retail units will need to be limited to avoid noise pollution to existing and new properties on sites 020 and 021. new properties along existing houses should be kept low so as to avoid over looking gardens that are currently not over looked.

The 127 and 128 roads are already unable to cope with the morning and evening commuters. I am sure the developers will not pay to build an extra lane and remove several homes to help solve the problem. The junction at Station Road and the 128 would need to be redesigned to accept traffic crossing the A128 and will probably need traffic lights or a major roundabout. St Mary's lane is windy and narrow and has several small stone bridges. A modern cement bridge would be ugly and would not enhance the village.

The junction at the station, the industrial estate and village is dangerous. The proposed low level roundabout at the junction (which would then be a junction for 5 major exits) is insufficient and dangerous for children crossing the road to and from the school bus.

The proposal suggests that the remaining industrial estate and the new dwellings share the same roads which is not safe for children and the older generation.

The pedestrian entrance to the railway station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath.

The bus stop is beside the waste collection amenity site for the borough and the car access area doubles up as the bus stop.

Driving from the 127 to the village is dangerous as the exits are inadequate.

Plot 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It has had severe flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. Bulphan and West Horndon are at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency's web site show. Flood prevention in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

Sites 020 and 021 are brownfield sites and are currently employment land. It is necessary that existing businesses will be helped to relocate to near by sites and that the offer is attractive enough to avoid them moving to outside the borough.

Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies, however this plan is still very draft and has lots of gaps to be filled. For example around flooding, public and road transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, rail. These need to be carried out to make the proposal robust and comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon in order to accurately calculate whether its plans are realistically affordable. It is better and easier to find out before any dwellings are built.

I am opposing to the fact that at no time were we informed of any plans to support the allocation of the amount of houses being considered to extend our small village.

please see below reasons for my objections:-
* The village would not be able to cope, we already have flooding in the village due to lack of maintenance, ditches remain blocked, pavements and roads in disrepair. The village is classed as a flood plain.

* Extra traffic coming in and out of the village would be a major issue, the roads and the bridge by the station are not designed to cope with the additional traffic not to mention extra buses needed to cope with the amount of people.

* West Horndon railway station is already overused , unless you get a train into London coming from Laindon you have no chance of getting on. 2 trains stopping an hour is not acceptable.

* Since we come under Brentwood council how would residents get into the town centre? Are you going to consider adding more buses and extending the time table?

* Our surgery already struggles with the people already in the village, unless you plan to become sick it`s hard to get an appointment.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development under the Local Development Plan for West Horndon. This incredibly unfair document appears to have been cobbled together without actually assessing whether West Horndon is capable of this development for the reasons stated below and I wish to object to the Local Development Plan for these reasons.;

1. Major Development and West Horndon; This development would increase our village by approximately 300%, most people live in the village because it is just that, a VILLAGE, not a small town, we have been given scant information as to how these houses will be built and what type of housing they are, only that you are planning to build on flood plains and greenbelt land, how can the village as a whole possibly make an informed decision when the plans are so outline? Why was West Horndon chosen to take 43% of the total required plan when it is the least suited to do so, Ingatestone has far more amenities and facilities and would be far better suited than our little village, why was it chosen over there? National Guidelines state that Local planning authorities should assess the quality and capacity infrastructure, Water Supply, Waste Water and its treatment, Energy including Heat, telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, and flood risk, none of this has been carried out, or if it has, it has not been made available to the residents. In light of this as a resident I can only see a reduction in quality of life. This proposal has been poorly put forward and is ill-conceived and has not been investigated on the scale it should have been before putting before the residents for a decision

2. Neighbourhood Planning and Localism; The NPP framework (National Planning Policy) states that local planning authorities should engage all affected sections of the community in the development of local plans and in the deciosns made in Planning, and should facilitate neighbourhood planning, apart from roadhsows, which some the head of planning didn't bother to turn up, giving very sketchy details there has been no engagement and this plan has been forced upon us by Brentwood Council

3. Metropolitan Green Belt; The National Planning Policy framework puts great importance on Green Belts to prevent Urban Sprawl, Housing is not an exceptional circumstance to destroy our green belt as far as the Government is concerned, why is it for Brentwood Council? There are so many more options within the Borough for development NOT on greenbelt, why is West Horndon being victimised?

4. Is West Horndon a sustainable Location? ; At pesent, there are crowded rush hour trains, quite often commuters boarding at West Horndon do not get seats in personal correspondence with C2C they have stated they have no plans to increase capacity, in fact the current rolling stock would not allow for an increase, there is a very limited bus service, very few shops, the school is at capacity, it takes at least 3 days to get an appointment with the Doctor, longer if you work commuter hours, the trains that do run do not run within the borough travel within the borough is unsupported, considering the plan makes great propaganda of the Crossrail, this has no benefits to West Horndon.

5. West Horndon is surrounded by countryside, I alone in my Garden have visiting Pipestrelle Bats, Dragonflys, Great Crested Newts, Grass snakes, Pheasants, Dunnock, Thrush, Finch, along with a selection of Tits, blackbirds etc, the surrounding areas also host Kestrel, Buzzard, Tawny Owl, Water Vole, and many butterflies and insects. Yet the Planning Committee have not carried out appropriate studies in Wildlife and habitat protection, just stating that no issues were envisaged! On whose expert opinion was this decided? Why has no consideration into biodiversity and wildlife issues?

6. Flood Risk; The strategic allocation proposes a development land extending to 25 hectares, the village was flooded in 1958, 1981, and 2012, it appears from the LDP that no assessment of drainage has been carried out, when the Environment Agency show West Horndon and Bulphan at risk of flooding. Surely this should have been done at a very early stage before valuable Borough resourses were wasted writing the Local Development Plan?

7. Loss of Employment and Employment Land ; From Brentwood Councils own Emplyment Land Review, this confirms that Horndon Industrial Estate is by far the most valuable employer area in the Borough, and is suitable for protection, why would the Borough risk the lost of Jobs and Companies in moving this area? We should be looking at improving infrastructure to and from the industrial estate not destroying it. The existing companies pay fairly low rent on older buildings, in moving to new ones there would be a great risk of increased costs forcing the companies to look elsewhere outside of the Borough

West Horndon is a nice small happy community, why are Brentwood Borough Council seeking to spoil this?

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?'.

Having now had time to assess the proposed plan for Brentwood's development, as a West Horndon resident I write to express my thoughts and concerns for the plans for the village I live in, but firstly I would like to express my extreme disappointment to learn of such a large scale project proposal via the front page of the local newspaper, and without any prior notice or consultation with myself and fellow residents of what is in my opinion a truly great village, and one that should be treated with the equal respect that is shown by those people who have made it their home. I appreciate that work has been done in the last few weeks, and I am truly grateful to all those people involved within the local council and our own parish council, but to see front page news a few weeks back for a plan to treble the size of the population in the area that you live in is truly shocking. In a nutshell, on a personal note, trying to give you some perspective of how one receives such news, this projected plan leaves me, and I certainly feel many of my fellow residents, with a feeling of a lack of respect paid to us by this proposal, ft's unpleasant, it feels like an attack on your way of life, this is the reality, and I am concerned that such a likely reaction has not been considered well in this proposal, and if it actually has, I put it to you that there clearly exists a lack of respect for the people of this village. The sheer size of this project naturally delivers a threat to the way of life we enjoy here currently, and it doesn't take a genius to identify there are inherent risks, and that significant changes in infrastructure will be required. I am truly astounded that some of the key discussions that are critical to this project such as the impact on the local school, our roads, the increase on the rail-passengers, flood risk, do not seem to have been researched at all well at this stage, if at all. To hear this lack of research after learning of the project and its scale in your local paper is very disappointing. The people of West Horndon are a great community, and are worthy of better treatment, and a less dramatic and better researched proposal for change in their neighbourhood. Despite the positive intentions of this project, and one can of course understand these intentions and the opportunities that West Horndon may provide for new settlement, we should not ignore what makes this village great and the community it has become today. There exists within the plan a great risk of destroying this community as we know it with the scale of this project and the lack of research currently undertaken. I will now highlight my key concerns:

Scale
43% of the target new housing for Brentwood being allocated to West Horndon is far too excessive a figure despite the opportunities the village is deemed to bring. How on earth can the village be expected to bear this huge majority share of the borough's target new housing?. It is truly mindblowing, and again how do you expect residents to react? - and i f you were expecting such a response, I stress again you are knowingly showing a lack of respect to the people of West Horndon. A % figure this high should surely highlight to you that an unfair proportion is being allocated to West Horndon. People invested in their homes in this area due to the village's way of life. As my local council, I expected you to recognise and help me maintain this way of life. The changes you propose completely alter what was an easy decision to make West Horndon our home. Surely you can understand why such a huge project worries me? Especially one with such poor early research.

Top Down nature of this proposal.
As already mentioned, I am disappointed at the level of engagement with the residents in the early stages of such a huge proposed change to our way of life. I refer to the Localism Act here, which highlights the natural reaction and resentment that such actions bring.

Metropolitan Green Belt
I believe all Green Belt should remain so, show me a genuine person that doesn't. I would like to see the targeted Industrial Estates become housing, this part of the project I agree to be positive for both the existing village and the new settlements, but a more reasonable number of houses should be considered and debated with residents.

Sustainable Location
Due to the evident inadequacies that West Horndon has for such growth, there needs to be far better researched feedback to residents to enable people to make their own informed decisions on whether the area can remain providing services and a lifestyle that residents are currently used to. I have no confidence whatsoever currently that the village can be considered a sustainable location following such a dramatic change. This is critical, and from what I see currently, there is a huge amount of work to do to convince residents that sustainability is achievable.

The "Village" and its setting
Why do people choose to live in West Horndon? Why do people move to West Homdon? The answer is because it provides a countryside village enviromnent in a great borough that provides beautiful views, wildlife in abundance, a certain type of home for a certain type of individual/family, ft's not for everybody, but it has qualities that appeal to certain people. The small population and open space are some of these qualfties, and provide for the "village" status.

People
invest their life's savings here when they make this place their home, and they invest based on a typically quieter environment than the average town. Your proposed plan carries a huge risk to this investment, and i f one was to consider this in pure purchasing terms as some kind of "contract', would it be fair to say that what one has purchased has changed so much as to be something that the purchaser did not intend to purchase at the outset of the contract? Would West Horndon remain a village?

Roads
Traffic increase is a concern. The A127 is appalling at rush hour. The abolishment of the Industrial Estate provides for less HGV's, but the growth in smaller family cars will be huge. The roads are currently inadequate for this projected growth, and there is no sight of a convincing plan or strategy for the accommodation of this increased traffic.

Flood Risk
This risk is one close to my heart and a sensitive subject. Our home, and four of our neighbours were flooded throughout on Christmas Day 2012. The past year has been the most difficult of my
life, restoring our home, and endeavoring to maintain everyday life in the process. We lost our
next-door neighbour, a dear old lady, moved into temporary accommodation, shortly after the event. This change in lifestyle, albeit temporary, clearly had too great an impact, but I hope demonstrates the impact a dramatic change in lifestyle can have for some people. Sorry to paint this sad picture, but its fact, and I do so you can understand the significance of this flood event. A not so merry Christmas, a holy flood maybe? Our home was flooded in every room, the entire house is currently still being restored, room by room. I remind you that I am a resident in Brentwood. I have heard nothing whatsoever from Brentwood Council, which is fine, we've coped and I'm not sure to what extent you would get involved in such an event, so can only assume there seems no interest in this catastrophe, yet at the same time I am faced with the prospect of a repeat event. I put it to you that unless I consider some significant changes to my landscape, I will remain exposed to the peril of flood despite the ditch at the back of my property, which clearly is inadequate to withstand flooding.

That's obvious, its happened once, and the landscape remains unchanged. I ask you do you really
understand the risk imposed by flood in this village, and if so, why did my property flood?

Additionally, can you please explain why the new housing will not be exposed to flood, and
additionally whether similar precautionary work can be carried out on my own property.

Summary
I hope that I have managed to get across the concerns my family have with this project, and hope
that my criticisms will be viewed constructively, and that we accept that some housing would be positive, certainly in place of the current industrial area. I have been as honest as possible with my response, and hope that our reaction to this proposal can be understood to be a natural one, and one based on very real risks and concerns.

My family and I totally respect the need for the provision of housing for a growing population, but West Horndon is completely misunderstood in this proposal, with a short-sighted emphasis really based in my view on a station which happens to have lots of open land around it. There is extremely poor research and non-existent planning currently into the needs of the area to respond to such a significant change, and this added to the ignorance of people's reasons for choice of investment here, making the village their home, leaves me currently very disappointed for the first time since my arrival in Brentwood from London 10 years ago. Brentwood is a truly great borough, and we should all be proud of it. West Horndon is a great village, and we are proud to call it our home, and we truly hope it can remain so for the future.

EMAIL RECEIVED BEFORE CONSULTATION:
"I send an email expressing my annoyance at seeing garages (of which one belongs to myself and husband) put forward for future planning without consultation to the owners. I am sure you are aware there are nine garages and to see in print proposals for development on this plot without consultation to the owners was a shock to say the least."

COMMENT FORM RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION:
"Firstly the garages adjacent to Lavender Ave are actually in Wistaria Close NOT next to Lavender Ave but running in line with Wistaria Close, which begs the question - Did your surveyor know what garages he was talking about (There are garages at the top of Lavender Ave), because the council i.e. tax payers money paid this person to get it wrong and no one checked it.

Secondly, we bought our house 2 years ago because it had a garage, parking space and private road for parking - OUR PRIVATE ROAD - not just a garage. Taking this away will devalue our property. Are you willing to give approximately £70k for this?

Thirdly, we will have no where to park (We have 2 cars) our neighbours in the close will have no where to park and furthermore where will your 13 houses park their cars if we can't.

Lavender Avenue, the road leading to Wistaria Close is already a very congested Road - in fact at times emergency vehicles would have problems getting through and this is where we will all be pushed into parking.

Please take these garages off your proposed plans for Brentwood - save the tax payers a lot of money - The residents a lot of hardship and look at your council garages that you already own!"

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed development of West Horndon.

Myself and my family have lived in West Horndon for over 15 years and move to the village specifically because of it quiet, idyllic and peaceful location. West Horndon has a "small village" feel and the proposals will simply destroy that atmosphere and result in yet another dysfunctional town being created.

Having reviewed the proposals, I believe that you have not taken due care and consideration before reaching this stage of the process. Specifically:

- Complete lack of proper assessment: National guidelines states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of the infrastructure, water supply, wastewater, energy, telecommunications, utilities, waste management, social waste, education and flood risk. This has clearly not been carried out by the Local Authority.

- Flood Risk - West Horndon has suffered from flodding in 1958, 1981 and as recently as 2012. The proposed development on land extending to some 25 hectares has been proposed without and assessment of drainage in the area - in fact the Environment Agency's own web site shows West Horndon as being at risk of flood, so I am flabbergasted that you have not carried out a formal review in relation to this matter.

- Involvement of the Local Community - Myself and my family feel completely excluded from the consulation process to date. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that local authorities should involve all sections of the community; this has clearly been a top-down process only, where the needs and input of the local community have been completely ignored.

- Green Belt - We have, over the past decade, witnessed many areas of natural beauty and green belt being destroyed in the UK. This appears to be yet another step to destroy local green belt, as the larger part of the proposed development is within a defined green belt area.

- Local Infrastructure Assessment - It is clear that there has been a complete lack of assessment of the impact the proposed development would have on local infrastructure. The local community will clearly bear the brunt of the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

In summary, I do not believe the local authority has given due care and attention to this proposal before publishing its findings. I would strongly recommend that you, in consultation with local community, carry out a study of West Horndon, focusing on its infrastructure, service amenities and public transport needs, before taking the matter any further.

Finally, I will be taking these matters up with out local Member of Parliament and seeking independent legal advice on the process you have adopted to date. I believe you have looked to fast-track your decision and have not followed the agreed national process and guidelines, something I am extremely disappointed with.

1. Large scale development.
West Horndon currently has approximately 750 homes, this proposal will effectively treble the size of the village. It would therefore no longer be a village and its character and ethos will be lost and changed totally. We have chosen to live in West Horndon because of the type of village it is and this large scale development will completely ruin that and possibly reduce the value of the existing properties in the process.

The proposal to build a large estate behind existing properties will block views residents currently have and their outlook will just be over houses. There will consequently be a loss of large expanse of countryside and also we will lose the wide variety of wildlife that are currently seen in and around the village. We feel that no consideration has been given to wildlife issues.

We are being asked to comment on these proposals when there are no details for us to comment on, only boundaries and location of the proposed site and the number of homes it might contain.

2. Distribution of new homes throughout the Borough.
Looking at the distribution of the new homes for the Brentwood area it is obvious that the distribution is extremely unfair. Why are there so many new homes proposed for the south of the borough? There is no justification for such a large proportion of the allocation to be built at West Horndon. There must be other suitable areas e.g homes could be built on the Hutton industrial estate if that was moved as it is proposed to move the West Horndon industrial site. The Hutton site is near many facilities that are far better than the existing facilities in West Horndon e.g.shops, bus links and, Shenfield station with far more frequent trains.

3. Traffic problems.
The proposal is for 1500 new homes. Given that in general there are 1 or 2 vehicles per home this will mean an extra 2,000 vehicles going into and out of West Horndon. This will result in a higher volume of traffic going along Station Road and Thorndon Avenue. This will result in more traffic noise and pollution along both roads. It will also lead to queues of traffic trying to get onto the A127 and the A128 especially during the rush hour. The queues on the A128 may also cause problems on the flyover over the A127 causing further congestion. There is already a problem with speeding along Station Road and Thorndon Avenue and this will undoubtedly increase with all the extra vehicles. The council have not shown any evidence of plans to improve the roads to cope with the extra traffic.

4. Property values.
New properties that have been built in West Horndon in the last few years have taken a long time to be sold why do the council think that this will change? Especially as it is also proposed to have a 14 Traveller sites in or near to West Horndon. The reality is that if prospective buyers are considering a new property in West Horndon then as soon as they hear of the traveller proposal they will buy elsewhere. It is a fact that a Traveller site will reduce the value of properties in that area - as evidenced in Crays Hill where Basildon council has put properties in Crays Hill in a lower council tax band.

5.Medical facilities.
We cannot always get a doctors appointment on the same day now with 750 homes, how long will we have to wait if the planned development goes ahead? The Health Authority have no plans to increase our medical facilities if this development goes ahead.

6. Public transport.
Extra people will mean more commuters on the trains. c2c currently have no plans to increase the frequency of the trains or to increase the number of coaches during rush hour. The trains are already very crowded at rush hour so extra people will make the situation intolerable. Rail travel from West Horndon does not cater for journeys within the borough the stations either side of West Horndon are in different boroughs.

The bus service is very infrequent and does not run in the evenings. The lack of public transport to other parts of the borough mean that residents of West Horndon will have to rely on their own transport - thus creating extra traffic day and night. There are not many people that would be able to cycle all the way to Brentwood - even if a "Green route" is developed.

The Brentwood Local Plan justification for siting so many new homes at West Horndon is that it has "good road and rail access". This only applies for the current size of the village. If it is tripled in size then the road and rail access is inadequate and major investment would be need in both to bring them up to the standard required to provide an adequate service.

7. Loss of Green Belt.
The planned development is mainly on metropolitan green belt. This was originally set up by the government to expressly stop urban sprawl and keep land permanently open. As per the National Planning Policy Framework that states "exceptional circumstances must exist to justify loss of green belt" the government have recently stated that housing demand is unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.

8. Risk of flooding.
The planned development is on a flood plain - how can homes be built on such an area? Some residents have already been turned down by insurance companies because of the flooding only as recent as last Christmas. The village has been flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. There is no evidence that the council have carried out any assessment of drainage in the area. Even the Environment Agency's website shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk if flooding. There are already problems with drainage, sewage how can extra homes be built without major improvements?

9. Local school.
The school is at full capacity. There will be no spaces at the local school for all the extra children.

10. Hospital facilities.
With so many new homes proposed in West Horndon and locally in Thurrock, Basildon hospital will not be able to cope with all the extra demands that will be placed on it. This will mean that people will have to travel further afield for treatment and other hospitals such as Queen's are struggling to cope with existing numbers of people that require treatment.


11. Crime.
Obviously with an increase in population, comes with it an increase in the crime rate, something which at the moment is low as per many VILLAGES. Also with the current economic climate it would be most unlikely that police resources could cope.

12. The Borough Council is expecting people to comment on a sketchy, poorly researched plan. It should therefore carry out a study of West Horndon focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport. Only after this has been done can it be said that the plan is responding to the needs of the local community. The local community has had little input into the plan. This is against the government guidelines of " Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and business is essential".

I am writing to register my strong protest regarding the proposed plan to develop 1500 new homes and a travellers site in West Horndon. To date the residents of West Horndon have been given very little detail regarding this proposal which is sketchy and ill thought out in the extreme, and it is understandably of huge concern.

The village would not be able to sustain a development of this size and it would totally destroy the existing village.

Increased traffic and congestion
The access in and out of the village is very limited. The 128 towards Tilbury cannot be improved due to the railway bridge, the 128 towards Brentwood runs through Ingrave and Herongate, and heading towards Upminister you have the small railway bridge. Anyone who lives in the area is aware that the 127 towards London is a nightmare, often at standstill and during school term time the same can be said of the 128 going into Brentwood. Traffic coming from Tilbury is also very heavy. At the moment the village does have a significant problem with large lorries thundering down Station Road and Thorndon Avenue has only the one way exit off the A127.

Infrastructure
1500 new homes would mean many more families. The primary school is at full capacity and once the children move on to secondary school they have to be transferred by bus into Brentwood. We have a small doctors surgery and often have to wait now for appointments. The bus service is very poor and anyone moving into the area, unless they can go by rail will need a car to get to work. We have very few shops and amenities, in particular for young people. Again we are dependant on the car for shopping and leisure.

Green Belt
It has always been my understanding that the Green Belt needs to be protected and that both local and National government were there to ensure protection. This is to protect an increasing sprawl of development and to go ahead with this proposal will be to destroy part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Green Belt is our legacy to future generations and should not be utilized. Once encroached upon it then becomes an easy option to build more and more. Too often these decisions are taken to people who are not directly affected by the outcome to the detriment of the residents.

Flooding
I understand that there has in the past been flooding in West Horndon and the Environment Agency's own website shows a risk of flooding to West Horndon. This must be taken into account. This is unfair to the existing residents and also to anyone looking to buy one of the new homes.

Redevelopment of the Industrial site
This would impact on people already working on the existing site as there is no guarantee that the existing companies could or would want to be relocated.

Conclusion
This development constitutes 43% of the proposed new development in Brentwood. Why this huge percentage should be inflicted on one small village is a mystery. There has been very little consultation and no information as to how this would impact on utilities such as water, waste etc, and services. This plan would treble the size of the existing village turning it into a huge sprawling estate. The sheer number of houses proposed is totally out of proportion to the size of the village. The rural character of the village would drastically change and the reason why many of us moved here and worked to pay our mortgages would be gone. This plan does not take into account the existing residents and we have had no involvement in the plans so far. This would also affect the wildlife around the village. I do not see that the existing residents would receive any benefits from this proposal and there must surely be other areas within the borough where the amenities are better. The Wash Road industrial estate is one area that springs to mind. New homes should be spaced around the Borough in areas where there is existing infrastructure to accommodate them.

There are serious misgivings regarding this proposal and we would ask the planning department to look again as this is neither sound or fair. The council should also look at sites that do have existing planning permission but have not be utilised. I heard a news report that Nationwide this exceeds the number of new home that currently are being proposed Nationwide.