see attached

see attached

Q1: No - Do not agree that the area north of Brentwood should be considered due to lack of infrastructure in roads and the type of land predominant in the area i.e. woodland, agriculture.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - As question 1, I do not believe the area north of Brentwood is suitable for any large scale development.

Q4: Agree that the A127 corridor offers the best solution and the Dunton Garden Suburb (200) is the best site.

Q5: Yes - Yes, but some sites are more suitable than others. For example the area 034 Officers Meadow could be suitable.

Q6: Priority must be to use brownfield sites. Villages should retain their own identities and not become just one mass of housing.

Q7: Yes - Traffic congestion would be a real concern around the villages as the country lanes are already becoming more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Q8: Yes

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

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

Q12: Yes

Q13: Correct balance needed between green infrastructure and any new development.

i disagree with the way this is being done and we do not have the roads to take more cars

brownfield only

Q1: No - I do not agree with the North of the Borough Option. Substantial building would not be sustainable. Country lanes have to be used to access A414 and M11, causing much erosion. The bus service is poor and doesn't run after early evening and is infrequent with regard to Kelvedon Hatch. Although there is a newly built Doctors Surgery, there are only 4 doctors, and an increase in the population would mean even longer waiting times. The local primary school is only small and I would imagine it would have trouble accommodating a significant number of new pupils. It is also important for the villages to maintain their own identity and not merge into an urban sprawl, which could happen if Green Belt on the edge of villages is used for housing.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - 201. Environmentally this would cause noise and light pollution. Various wildlife live and feed in this field including bats, owls and other birdlife i.e. sparrow hawks, green woodpeckers and thrushes and starlings, all in decline. The corridor of land is important for wildlife and I believe on this agricultural greenbelt would be detrimental. If this site were to be developed it would increase the size of the village by almost half again, which would be unsustainable.
204. I believe this site would also be detrimental to the village, as again a large development would be unsustainable and change the character of the village.
217. This is an area used by villagers for dog walking, picnics and general recreation. If this were developed it would deprive the village of a much needed amenity.

Q4: I think the Dunton Garden Suburb would be a good option especially as it could provide funding for A127 improvements.

Q5: Yes

Q6: It would be better to develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes

Q8: Yes

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

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

Q12: Yes

Q13: Green infrastructure should be as important as all the others, to maintain a healthy society both physically and psychologically.

Q1: Yes - Assuming the Dunton project is approved the balance of housing required should be allocated fairly evenly over the three areas.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - A12 Corridor. Major intrusions into the Green Belt, such as Officers Meadow must be avoided. However some development by the Mountnessing roundabout on the old scrap yard and associated with a redeveloped BP garage (currently a road hazard) is acceptable.

Q4: No comment as I do not know the area well. Local views are the important ones.

Q5: Yes - Only to limited extent as infill on brownfield sites are to be preferred.

Q6: Limited extensions of villages still creates a community but Greenfield sites may be isolated and not part of the community.

Q7: Yes - Subject to largely respecting Green Belt.

Q8: Yes for Brentwood Central but not for lesser shopping areas which are only adequate as they are at present (e.g. Shenfield).

Q9: Yes - Shenfield and Hutton are short of public space and playing fields.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4

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

Q12: Yes

Q13: Traffic and parking. Redevelopment of Shenfield station forecourt and the adjacent British Rail owned properties. Extra parking requirement for Crossrail is likely to be limited in spite of what press says.

Q1: Yes - I agree that the 3 areas should be looked at from a case by case scenario. You cannot compare the more rural areas to the north of the Borough with the A12 and A127 corridors.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - I feel it is unacceptable and wrong that you would consider building to the north of the Borough. We should be preserving natural landscape and local villages not making them into small towns.

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: No - There is already too much traffic and the urban areas are big enough.

Q6: Absolutely not, these villages are all that is quintessentially English. If you develop on these sites you may as well concrete over the whole country.

Q7: Yes - The more narrow country lanes around the north of the Borough are already used by large commercial trucks that are too big for the roads. More traffic would cause accidents and traffic.

Q8: I agree with this but the traffic into Brentwood is already so bad that I can see why out of town shopping is growing.

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

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

Q12: No - I don't believe you have considered the infrastructure issues around the north of the Borough. The current infrastructure is adequate for the number of properties and people who live in the villages. It will not be sufficient if there were more people and homes.

Q13: Would it not be possible to use the money on immigration and remove those who should not be in this country and use their homes for those who deserve it rather than have to keep building new homes?

In short, Blackmore is a historic, medieval, picturesque village that must retain its current status. I live on the village green and every weekend see visitors who come to marvel at how pretty and unique Blackmore is. I speak with these visitors and they come to the village because it is different from al the local areas. If you build 130 new homes and add around 600 new people, Blackmore will be very different and not for the better.

In addition, the narrow country lanes around Blackmore are not wide enough for large trucks. I have already lost one wing mirror so I imagine the vehicles required for any proposed build would also raise problems with residents and traffic.

see attached

Quality of life is more important than growth, if growth is detrimental to the countryside.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - I feel that the A12 corridor proposal should not be considered because of the damage to rural areas.

Q4: I feel the Dunton proposal is best suited.

Q5: No.

Q6: Brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Transport and public amenities.

I broadly support the splitting of the Borough into the three areas on North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor as they reflect the different characteristics of these areas.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes - I do not feel that the A12 corridor proposal is appropriate because of the loss of Green Belt land and the impact that further growth would have on the infrastructure of the area.

Q4: Dunton Garden proposal.

Q5: No.

Q6: Brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Road, rail and public amenities.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Makes sense.

The importance of a sustainable approach to development should carry the most emphasis. However, what does the document mean by sustainable? environmental, economic, social or all 3? does sustainable development include improved infrastructure and a percentage of affordable housing?

Option 2 fails to detail the similar open country side south of Brentwood urban area. Hence I believe this should be split in 2 urban and south Brentwood down to theA127. The options to build are vastly different - building in the urban area and close to the stations / A12 makes sence - south of Brentwood does not as the infrastructure does not support this.

The A12 corridor should be split as the area south of Brentwood down to the A127 is vastly different to the urban area. It has a character very similar to the north of Brentwood. Building on brown field sites in urban areas close to the stations and A12 makes sense - south of Brentwood the infrastructure does not support building and it would destroy the feel of the area which we all must feel is what make Brentwood special.

Rural areas south of Brentwood in A12 corridor should be split from urban area

Due to their different characteristics, the three areas selected appear appropriate for the purpose of considering approaches to growth.

Yes I agree with part of the arears
A ,North of the borough, C A127 corridor
b, Part of this option preferably the 024b Sawyer Hall site and 089 site

Whilst agreeing in principal , there needs to be greater consideration given to the current opportunistic over-development within town centres which has followed an exponential increase in density due to their been no maximums density that would ensure that Brentwood's natural character is retained ,For example we had recent experience of a planning application next to our property for 19 apartments which would have had a planning density of 185 units per Hectare this was achieved by proposing to build out to the maximum extent of the development with an underground car park. This application was rejected by BBC however it was taken to appeal and rejected by the Planning Inspectorate who stated in their rebuttal that they considered the application to be un-neighbourly . The developments within Town centres will no doubt entail excavations in close proximity to existing properties which due to the historic nature of the areas Town Centres may not have very deep foundations and therefore be prone to damage , currently there seems to be an attitude within planning that this is a building control issue however it is too late by that time to prevent damage , this matter has been recognised and acted on by London Boroughs such as Westminster and Chelsea.

The areas are very different, and each has its own problems, especially the infrastructure in the villages.

Over development of rural villages without necessary infrastructure

(A) North of the Borough and (C) A127 Corridor make sense as geographic and cohesive community areas and can be considered as units in terms of approach to growth. However (B) A12 Corridor is selected based on no really coherent logic. The A12 is itself not a driver of growth, or growth patterns, across the area; there are no junctions through the main bulk of the settlement population, ie between Brook St and Mountnessing. It would be much more sensible to treat each of the major settlements in this area separately, which would mean separate "broad areas" for i) Brentwood (market town), ii) Shenfield & Hutton (London-oriented commuter settlements) , iii) Ingatestone & Mountnessing (rural settlements), iv) Herongate & Ingrave (rural villages) and v) Pilgrims Hatch (area with particular development need). Each of these are distinct communities, with different characters and issues which merit consideration in detail. If the LDP is to fulfil its goal of optimising development across the Borough these areas cannot be lumped together.

Development should be targeted around existing developments to minimise impact on the environment.

The three defined areas are a good representation of the borough.