The Broad areas selected seem reasonable

The A12 corridor contains urban areas and greenbelt. The greenbelt areas are more similar to those described in area A .

I do not agree that these villages north of Brentwood should be considered for development. I live in Doddinghurst and the reason that I moved here from Hornchurch was to have a family and get away from the town way of life. We have limited public transport and Doddinghurst Road where I live has no pavement so you cannot walk anywhere. The impact on more cars on the already dangerous and busy country roads would be most unsatisfactory. The impact on the local school pre-schools and doctors surgeries would be most detrimental. It would be so sad to see beautiful green belt land built on with flats.

The idea of linking the options areas to the transport infrastructure is an obvious and commendable step.

I would agree with the three broad groupings and their characteristics.

I agree with the three areas as designated, but the north needs protection , the A12 corridor cannot accommodate more great and is overdeveloped whereas the south has the infrastructure in both road and rail to take further growth expansion.

agree

The "North of the Borough" area is made up of mostly villages and rural areas where further development would be detrimental to the character of the area.

Also, most of the villages do not have enough spare capacity in terms of roads, schools, GPs etc to support additional housing.

And the majority of this part of the Borough s Green Belt where development should not be permited.

[Email Submission - See attached]

Support.

splitting the borough into the 3 areas appears to make sense.

I believe the areas of growth should be split accross the borough & not create a dense urbanisation & pressure on existing ammenities, schools, roads, doctors, shops.

Whilst you state that "it is important to consider allowing villages to grow in order to provide for local need" you also need to consider the local infrastructure of villages. For example Blackmore has one shop. Already this gets incredibly busy with cars parked on the road and corners of the road making it dangerous to pull out onto the main road and cross as a pedestrian - there are no pedestrian crossings. Have you considered how this one shop will support more families - there is no room for expansion? There is only one primary school which is already at capacity - how will this cope with more families moving to the area? Does this mean we have to travel further to send our children to school - not very environmentally friendly; as I understood it one of the Governments key policies is around environment and sustainability - you would be solving one problem and creating another. Equally Blackmore gets a lot of visitors at the weekend, especially in summer months so there are even more cars along with cyclists, walkers etc. It is a busy enough village without adding to it. Nine Ashes has already had new housing built within the last year and Blackmore is fit to bursting with houses and people. Will our rural locations no longer be rural?
You state that "Local roads provide access to connecting A-roads such as the A414, which provides access to the M11 and Chelmsford without driving on the highway network" - this is a total nightmare for Blackmore and Nine Ashes which are both used as a "rat run" / cut through for an increasing number of cars, the majority of whom completely disregard the speed limit imposed. There is a 30mph speed limit outside our house and 90% of cars drive well over this, some at double the speed. This is so dangerous given there is a local primary school which they fly past. We have requested on a number of occasions for speed cameras and footpaths which you have rejected. You are wanting to channel more cars onto the A414 for people to access the M11 etc - the A414 is already packed with cars at rush hour. Equally have you tried to get on a train from Chelmsford or Ingatestone to London during rush hour or even tried to park in the station car parks? They are packed already, how are they going to cope with more people using local stations?
You need to seriously consider the local infrastructure and addressing this if you are considering such areas for housing developments. You can't build houses without the right local infrastructure support as although you will be meeting your targets you will adding to other problems and issues.

Yes, I agree

Strongest support must be given to strategic growth around the Dunton Garden Suburd proposal ie the A127 corridor.

Growth around the A12 is not likely to succeed as that area is a collection of many differing communities with different needs - one big plan for them all can only harm the area. Separate analysis of each community's needs must be undertaken.

see attached

The divisions seem to make sense. It must be considered that the North part of the Borough has lots of small country roads linking the villages to the transport hubs. They are only just fit for purpose at present. An increase in vehicular traffic especially the building vehicles and supply vehicles should development occur will damage these roads and cause further damage to roads which need repairing now.

The "A12 corridor" seems far too diverse an area to be considered as a whole: the needs and options in Brentwood/Shenfield town centres are very different from those in the villages of Ingrave/Herongate/Ingatestone. It seems to be deliberately designed to focus attention on the "A127 corridor" and thus create a bias in favour of the proposals for development in Dunton.

see attached. (OFFICER RESPONSE ONLY, OFFICIAL RESPONSE TBC)

The NPPF sets out the three roles that the planning system should perform in delivering its purpose of achieving sustainable development (para. 7):
- Economic; ensuring that sufficient, appropriate land is available for development to support growth and innovation and to coordinate requirements for developments such as infrastructure;
- Social; providing housing to meet the needs of local communities and creating a favourable environment in which to live, with access to local services;
- Environmental; protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment, including improving biodiversity and addressing issues of waste, pollution and climate change.

It is therefore of the utmost importance that sites allocated for development are selected on the basis that there will be no adverse impacts on existing designated wildlife sites; this includes increased recreational pressure and severance of important wildlife corridors. Currently designated sites do not exist in isolation, and are dependent on viable and functional wildlife corridors that create a permeable landscape and allow the migration and movement of species between areas of high quality habitat.

Essex Wildlife Trust would urge local authority planners to fully integrate the model of Living Landscapes into their strategic plans. This could be achieved through the creation of "green infrastructure" masterplans which aim to enhance linkages between and habitat "buffers" around existing local wildlife sites. Such masterplans should be developed in advance of plans for the built development and their primary focus should be on protecting and enhancing biodiversity.

An important consideration for these areas is that such Living Landscapes are also beneficial to local people and communities and foster a flourishing local economy. This embraces the idea that we should be encouraging people to live in, work in and enjoy their local environment harmoniously. Any substantial development allocated in the green belt should include the generous provision of recreational green space. This serves to reduce human pressure on existing wildlife habitat.

Local authorities in England and Wales have a legal duty to conserve biodiversity. This is recognised and formalised within Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, which states:
(1) "Every public body must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity"
(3) "Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat." (This is significant as it places a duty on all local authorities to conserve wider biodiversity in addition to the statutory protection given to certain sites and species.)

Local authorities also have important obligations in implementing the national Biodiversity Action Plan. This means that a local authority is required to demonstrate that:
* biodiversity conservation and enhancement is appropriately integrated throughout all departmental policies and activities
* all staff, managers and elected members understand how biodiversity issues relate to their own decisions and actions
* it provides sustained support to local biodiversity initiatives, such as Local Biodiversity Action Plans, Biological Records Centres and Local Site systems
* biodiversity, in particular Species and Habitats of Principle Importance, is properly protected and enhanced in line with statutory nature conservation obligations
* it has access to professional ecological expertise and up-to-date biodiversity information
* it reports on progress towards national and local biodiversity targets.

The aim of the biodiversity duty is to raise the profile of biodiversity in England and Wales, so that the conservation of biodiversity becomes properly embedded in all relevant policies and decisions made by public authorities. Planning policies and decisions must reflect and where appropriate promote relevant EU obligations and statutory requirements.

The use of the description A12 corridor to cover the vast area of beautiful countryside from the Rayleigh Road to the A128 near Ingrave is a misnomer and has not helped the general population of Hutton, Brentwood, and Ingrave to understand that you are talking about the vast area specified on the map. I believe that the true A12 corridor i.e. Ingatestone, Mountnessing and land adjacent to the A12, should be one area. The rural area between Hutton, Ingrave and the back road from Heron gate to Billericay should have been designated as an additional area.

It is disingenuous to claim Ingrave and Herongate areas are part of the A12 corridor. Residents in these locations will, on the whole, use the A127, either directly at the A128 junction, or indirectly through Warley/Childerditch, via gps 51.582525, 0.339024. This means the population for these areas should be shown in the A127 corridor figures, and the strain on infrastructure in that area.

Epping Forest District Council welcomes Brentwood Borough Council's commitment to accommodate all of its Objectively Assessed Housing Need within its own borders, as is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. The Council also welcomes the acknowledgement of the importance of working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary issues, and will continue to engage with the Borough Council, including through the existing Co-operation for Sustainable Development Group.
(Please note that this is an officer-level comment which has yet to be ratified by the Portfolio Holder, as discussed with Phil Drane).

Epping Forest District Council supports Brentwood Borough Council's commitment to considering further evidence on issues such as the impacts of Crossrail, employment land and job provision, sustainability and planning for Gypsy Roma Travellers (including the Essex-wide Gypsy Traveller Accommodation Assessment, 2014).
(Please note that this is an officer-level comment which has yet to be ratified by the Portfolio Holder, as discussed with Phil Drane).

There is a national requirement so all options need to be looked at. I broadly agree with the splitting of the three areas, but I think the 6b needs to be split into 2 sections: brown belt and green belt. To me there are advantages and disadvantages with both and these need to be considered separately.

n

Support all broad areas.

see attached.

see attached.

see attached.

see attached.