Question 1

Showing comments and forms 511 to 540 of 645

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11114

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Town

Representation Summary:

The population in the South East should not increase and the North of England used. We should grow more on green land and import less. Lateral thinking would help.
There should be less central government and more democratic local government with election of people not political parties.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11134

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs. Daphne Gilbert

Representation Summary:

Do not feel able to comment.

Full text:

Q1: No - Do not feel able to comment.

Q2: See Q1 comment.

Q3: Yes - Have already registered objections to proposed development of site 011A, and new extensions 011B, 011C and 0176 are not welcome either.

Q4: Not able to make any useful comment.

Q5: No - Better to fill in brownfield sites within the urban areas to prevent urban spread.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes and No - Not sure - more traffic on motorways?

Q8: Yes - We need good shops, but not so many eating places. A cinema would be nice as well.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Tranquility: 3

Q11:
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: Yes - Pressure on services, i.e. doctors etc.

Q13: Improvement on roads and faster rail service from Brentwood to London.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11152

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Dunn

Representation Summary:

Yes. It is a good idea to split the borough into three areas

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11153

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jean Sibbald

Representation Summary:

It makes sense to spread the housing growth across the Borough.

Full text:

Q1: Yes - It makes sense to spread the housing growth across the Borough.

Q2: No - The A127 is already overloaded as is the rail network Fenchurch Street to Southend. We value our open spaces as much as the people in the north of the borough.

Q3: Yes - This area cannot take this development either on brownfield sites or Green Belt land. Consider the risk of flooding.

Q4: To develop adjacent to this village (or over develop the industrial site) would destroy this village. It seems that Dunton Garden village is the ideal solution.

Q5: Yes - We feel that the A12 corridor has the most potential for growth.

Q6: Develop (within reason) brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes - But only if the strategic highway network can cope? Does the A127 fall into this category?

Q8: Yes - Consideration must be given to maintain town centre.

Q9: No - Unless desire is made to build on Green Belt the answer is NO. Certainly develop brownfield sites.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 2
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: No - The amount of development proposed for West Horndon cannot take place without the road and rail network being massively improved and we cannot imagine this being accomplished.

Q13: All categories concerning every day living should be prioritised simultaneously.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11166

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Duncan

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: No - Who would want to live on a busy, noisy major road.

Q6: Brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Leave as it is.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Tranquility: 4

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 1
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: No.

Q13: That will depend on how much the government is prepared to give.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11193

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline MacDonald

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: Dunton corridor.

Q5: No - Nobody wants to live on a major road.

Q6: Brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Tranquility: 4

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 1
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: No.

Q13: Spear to Eric Pickles.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11214

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Robert Skingley

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Dunton site and others along A127 are the most suitable as they have good transport links and are currently underdeveloped. West Horndon has both rail and road connections.

Q4: Dunton Garden village A127. West Horndon A127 and rail links both relatively underdeveloped.

Q5: No - No! This area is already heavily developed. Green Belt fringes are essential for open space and the well being of all residents in this area. Green Belt here has beauty and is environmentally essential, for wildlife and residents.

Q6: No - Brownfield sites offer the best opportunities. None of the negativities of greenfield developments.

Q7: No - Not necessarily - Anywhere with road access or rail access.

Q8: No - Parking is an issue in Brentwood. Out of town shopping centres are preferred by shoppers where parking is free, i.e. Pipps Hill, Mayflower, Chelmer village - all out of the borough. Brentwood should aim to compete.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Low density housing: 5

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Main infrastructure issues considered.

Q13: Improving Ongar Road access to Brentwood at busy times. Free available parking to encourage rail use (not for commuter parking but for local residents outside of commuter peak times).

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11233

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Denis Nobbs

Representation Summary:

The A12 corridor and A127 corridor may be sensible choices. North of the Borough is unsuitable because of its collection of villages and landscape and the lack of transport facilities.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11237

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Christina Atkins

Representation Summary:

Overall we agree but have reservation about option 5.

Full text:

Q1: No - Overall we agree but have reservation about option 5.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Brownfield sites.

Q4: The Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No to greenfield, yes to brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Many people visit Blackmore Village because it has history and also retains its identity and charm as a 'small village'. It is imperative that Blackmore village is kept as it is for future generations to enjoy. This village is surrounded by farmland and is not a continuation of Doddinghurst and this is how it should remain. Although some building has taken place over the last few years most villagers think that this is now enough!

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Sheltered housing for the elderly must be considered.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11272

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr James Beenham

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11292

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Hills

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11304

Received: 16/04/2015

Respondent: Mr W P Wix

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11317

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Lukas Warren

Representation Summary:

Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11319

Received: 16/04/2015

Respondent: David and Lesley Peterson

Representation Summary:

No comment made

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11325

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: MRS JANE MILES

Representation Summary:

The A12 and A127 are appropriate as they have transport infrastructure to support new developments.
The North of the borough should not be included because the infrastructure is at capacity, such as schools, roads, parking, GP.
The area is either villages or rural land, development would be out of keeping with the area.
More development will mean more vehicles on the roads. Green Belt should not be developed.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11360

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Anthony Warren

Representation Summary:

Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11384

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Linda Warren

Representation Summary:

Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11407

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Ms Martine Schweyer

Representation Summary:

In principle yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11434

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Theresa Webster

Representation Summary:

No. I feel that introducing large numbers of housing in any of the outlined areas will place considerable strain on the A127 and the A128, and most worryingly, Basildon Hospital.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11454

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Stephen Tower

Representation Summary:

Yes. I believe there is a need to develop and grow within the Brentwood area, but this should not be at the expense of green areas where people can go to relax and de-stress from everyday life.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11470

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Louise Phillips

Representation Summary:

No. This country has a massive problem with immigration which is now leading to the government building on OUR greenbelt to accommodate this. If you go in Romford now the British are the minority!! How about putting the British Public first and just saying NO!

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11484

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Gerald Mountstevens

Representation Summary:

The A12 and A127 corridors seem to be the obvious choices because of
their proximity to an established road network.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11494

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Hutton Preservation Society

Representation Summary:

In a difficult situation they are the best choice.

Full text:

Because of my very long association with Hutton Preservation Society I have been asked by its secretary (there is no chairman at present) to give our views on this subject.

As longtime members of CPRE and the Metropolitan Green Belt we have fought strenuously over the years to keep this area of Hutton, with its conservation village, without undue building. We do recognise, however, the difficulties the Borough is under, we really have considered the matter impartially.

If Brentwood and Basildon can come to proper agreement, of the three difficult categories this Society feels that of the Dunton Garden Suburb must be the best. It presents so much the better facilities, despite the sad reduction in the Green Belt. There would be opportunity for a sustainable community. In our area we cannot see this happening without drastic change.

1) What prospect has ECC for upgrading the A129 say in the next decade? At times it is infinitely overcrowded, flooded in this area in three places and a source of several accidents. It cannot support heavy construction lorries and nor can the surrounding country lanes. Which are already suffering hugely? A dual carriageway?

2) Much of the suggested farmland has received from DEFRA considerable tax payers money in the form of single farm payments. This could be substantial consideration. It is by no means a huge brownfield site.

3) Like, sadly much of the borough, we have many historical associations, Roman coins, Saxon broaches, Tudor brick kiln and so on are all found along Church Lane, a very early settlement. It is a constant joy to its many walker as this Society has frequently been told. It has poor communal facilities however, no GPs, no immediate state schools, no late evening buses, no easy train service. Transport would need total revision (in this of course I refer only to the Hutton Preservation area). Also this too, this committee felt would apply to the scrubland and scenic villages of your third option, the most difficult and complex of them all.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to take part in the consultation. We have always been grateful to the Council for helping us to uphold the Green Belt over the years.

Consultation Questionnaire:

Q1: Yes - In a difficult situation they are the best choice.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Sadly ECC will have a restricted budget for many years. Can we manage transport difficulties to heavy materials needed for growth without maximum disturbance?

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes - I think needs must, but with care and reluctance.

Q6: Most definitely brownfield sites, even within the Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - With reservation and common sense.

Q9: No - We are very fortunate and have open space and it is much used.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Air Quality: 5

Q11:
Houses: 2
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 1
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: Yes - This seems to me to be an exceedingly comprehensive review of a very complex subject. Most of us dislike change but the population pressures on this area and political influence have forced it on us.

Q13: Alas, road structure in my corridor at least coupled with transport in general of which Crossrail is going to be a future unknown entity, both good and bad. And health facilities of all kinds are already a problem with an already exploding population.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11530

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Gerald Eve LLP

Representation Summary:

Yes, however it should be noted that these are to aid identification. As site specific matters are of greater relevance, for example 018 Thoby Priory, whilst located in the Northern are is more closely associated with Mountnessing.

Full text:

see attached.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11536

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Padfield

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11549

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Jobbins

Representation Summary:

These broad areas should be subject to the objective of reducing private car use, encouraging the use of public transport, walking and safe cycling, and locating larger developments (if required) close to existing major roads and bus and rail hubs.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11573

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Garry Steptowe

Representation Summary:

Splitting the Borough up into areas does make sense.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11585

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Tom Bennett

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11595

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Kevin Nicholson

Representation Summary:

Yes. I agree with the broad areas considered to meet the need for 5,500 houses but would like to ensure we do not loose sight of the boroughs objective of "pride in the natural environment". We should preserve as much open green space as possible and concentrate developments closer to the larger urban areas like Brentwood, Shenfield and West Horndon

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11608

Received: 11/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Christopher Ringe

Representation Summary:

Generally yes, considering the task Brentwood Council is charged with. I think it is generally well thought out.

Full text:

Q1: Generally yes, considering the task Brentwood Council is charged with. I think it is generally well thought out.

Q2: Yes, although transport and access would need to be carefully thought through. If every proposed development has at least one car - the problems speak for themselves.

Q3: No.

[Q3 site 076]: I am directly adjacent to a proposed development site (076). I have lived there since 1967. Had the objections lodged at the time been sustained I would have been deprived of what I consider to be an idyllic life and upbringing. I don't see why other people shouldn't have a crack at it also. As stated, I am more concerned with what would be built and for whom, the type of development and access than the actual building on Green Belt itself.

Q4: A127 corridor. I think this area would benefit most.

Q5: Yes, as time passes all areas need to expand slightly or risk becoming stale. I always think that new buildings - carefully planned mind, can hep to revitalise areas. Most villages are only pleasant to live in because they have been allowed to expand.

Q6: No, brownfield is always preferable, but I have no problem with greenfield. I'm always more concerned with what is actually being built, and for whom, rather than the type of site.

Q7: No thoughts on this.

Q8: No, not necessarily. Satellite areas with improved facilities/retail etc will also benefit the town centre.

Q9: Blackmore is largely open space - make of it what you will.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: There are more than likely other issues but generally I think it is a well proposed plan.

Q13: Roads and transport links.

Attachments: