Question 2
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11293
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Lynda Hills
No. Increasing the number of houses in the Borough by the amount proposed will increase pressure on already very busy roads. Widening or increasing the number of roads has the potential to impact even more on Green Belt, areas for recreation and farmland. Will there be a loss of housing because of this? There are areas along both the A12 and A127 which have the potential to become 'bottle necks'.
see attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11305
Received: 16/04/2015
Respondent: Mr W P Wix
The A127 Corridor is already at capacity. Its not clear why the A127 Corridor is deemed to have greater potential for improvements than the A12.
West Horndon has only two trains per hour. Railway is at over capacity during rush hour.
The bus timetable is pitiful.
Fields surrounding the present housing in West Horndon used to be either green field sites or more importantly, green belt.
On p27 of the Consultation Document the Flood Alleviation Scheme for West Horndon village is not shown. No indication is given that the village gets flooded. Flooding is a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed before any development decision can be made.
ALL SAINTS CHURCH needs to be PROTECTED.
See attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11318
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Lukas Warren
Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas.
The document is wrong to imply that the landscape in the south is considered any less by its residents as those in the north value their landscape.
Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.
See attached representation.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11322
Received: 16/04/2015
Respondent: David and Lesley Peterson
I use the rail/road network to commute to work daily. I can not always guarantee getting a seat on the train so frequently need to stand all the way into London. Roads are similarly congested during rush hour periods. Further development along the A127 corridor (not just around West Horndon and Dunton) will further exacerbate the situation.
Flood risks around proposals to develop the A127 corridor have not been considered.
See attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11327
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: MRS JANE MILES
No. There should not be development on the edge of villages in the north. (Reasons as per Q1) This kind of development will lead to villages merging into each other. Brownfield should be prioritised. Green Belt development should not be allowed, it is to protect the land.
see attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11361
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Anthony Warren
Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas.
The document is wrong to imply that the landscape in the south is considered any less by its residents as those in the north value their landscape.
Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.
See attached representation.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11385
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Linda Warren
Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas.
The document is wrong to imply that the landscape in the south is considered any less by its residents as those in the north value their landscape.
Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.
See attached representation.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11408
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Ms Martine Schweyer
Yes. It is how they are managed that requires careful and sensitive handling. Whilst a very few affordable houses ( max x10, 2 bed houses/flats) would benefit Blackmore permitting young people a step on the property ladder and older residents to downsize thus able to stay in the village, this may prove uneconomic for the developers. Large scale development would conversely impair the rural balance in Blackmore.
see attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11436
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Theresa Webster
No. I fail to understand why there should be any building on designated greenbelt land.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11455
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Stephen Tower
Yes. I do agree with the issues raised in the planning document, but I believe that the council has to be very clever about the way it develops Brentwood. Brentwood is a great place, but if you develop heavily around the town centre it is going to make it a living hell for people trying to drive around town, with a lot more congestion, noise and air pollution and a reduction in living standards.
see attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11471
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Louise Phillips
You don't seem to care this is Green Belt land and that the Brownfield site and surrounding areas already have a problem with flooding in West Horndon. Building on Green Belt is only going to make this problem worse. The A127 and the railway are already overstretched and will not cope.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11485
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Gerald Mountstevens
Any growth to the north of the borough is going to require an extreme
update of the present road network to accommodate additional traffic.
Obviously there will also be the accompanying infrastructure to provide the
above.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11495
Received: 13/02/2015
Respondent: Hutton Preservation Society
Yes.
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.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11531
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Gerald Eve LLP
Yes.
see attached.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11537
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Nicholas Padfield
Yes.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11550
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Jenny Jobbins
Yes. It is vital to retain and to build sustainable communities with a mix of housing to meet the needs of public service workers, young people and older people with limited mobility options (i.e. no car).
see attached
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11574
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Garry Steptowe
No. Living in West Horndon, I use the A127 daily and traffic jams in both directions are a daily occurence. Further extensive development along this road will only make it worse and more dangerous to users. The A12 corridor has as much development opportunity as the A127 and has a lot less productive Green Belt land. Further development along the A127 in West Horndon would mean lossing huge swathes of Green Belt.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11586
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Tom Bennett
Yes.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11596
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Kevin Nicholson
Yes. I understand and agree with the issues for each area are as follows:
North of the Borough:-
Attractive natural landscape
Transport connections and local facilities are not good
Unsustainable to locate significant growth here
A12 Corridor:-
Utilise brownfield land
Additional development opportunities surrounding urban areas
A127 Corridor:-
Greatest potential for growth than elsewhere in the borough
More scope for imprrovement than the A12
It would make more sense to prioritise the A127 corridor than the A12 corridor.
This would allow the borough to meet its obligation whilst retaining the green objectives.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11610
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Christopher Ringe
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.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11619
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Richard Wright
Questions too broad/wide ranging to say either yes or no.
see attached.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11636
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Martin Clark
Yes.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11668
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Blanche Dust
Yes.
Q1: Yes. My main concern is that by allowing landowners of Green Belt sites to put forward their land for inclusion in the Plan, it will put a blight on households that border their land.
Q2: Yes.
Q3: Don't agree to the following sites in the Plan:
028 A/B/C Land East of Running Waters, Brentwood
067 A/B Salmonds Farm, Salmonds Grove, Ingrave
146 Land adjacent to Hillcrest Nursery
192 Heron Hall, Herongate
183 Former sewage pumping station, Ingrave Hall, Ingrave
Q4: West Horndon.
Q5: Don't know.
Q6: Develop brownfield sites.
Q7: Yes.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: No.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Public Footpaths: 5
Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: Yes.
Q13: Schools, healthcare.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11669
Received: 20/04/2015
Respondent: Mr & Mrs John and Rebecca Gaymer
Number of people: 2
Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.
With regard to broad area (B), the A12 Corridor, we agree with paragraph 2.17 that there are development opportunities on Green Belt sites surrounding the urban areas, and we consider that it is vital that such sites come forward in addition to brownfield land in order to meet the Borough's objectively assessed housing needs. This represents a new approach from the previous Preferred Options draft of the Local Plan, which sought to meet a lower housing requirement and avoid the need to release greenfield Green Belt sites. It is now recognised that there is an obligation to meet objectively assessed needs within the Borough, as far as is consistent with the policies of the NPPF.
See attached.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11679
Received: 20/04/2015
Respondent: Mr & Mrs John and Rebecca Gaymer
Number of people: 2
Agent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.
The 5,500 new homes needed over the 15 year plan period, as identified in the OAN and the capcity for only 2,500 on brownfiled sites mean that additional greenfield land is needed. This will be in Green Belt. Specific greenfield sites within the A12 corridor would provide suitable opportunities for a sustainable residential urban extension are Sites 079A and 153, whilst the adjacent Site 079C is a suitable site for employment uses. The A12 provides a key transport link to facilitate growth in this area, and the land on the edge of Ingatestone is sustainably located near to local facilities and services within the urban area.
See attached.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11690
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Peter Dust
Yes.
Q1: Yes. I am concerned that by allowing landowners of Green Belt sites to put forward their land for inclusion in the Plan, it will put a blight on properties that border their land.
Q2: Yes.
Q3: Don't agree to the following sites in the Plan:
028 A/B/C Land East of Running Waters, Brentwood
067 A/B Salmonds Farm, Salmonds Grove, Ingrave
146 Land adjacent to Hillcrest Nursery
192 Heron Hall, Herongate
183 Former sewage pumping station, Ingrave Hall, Ingrave
Q4: West Horndon.
Q5: Don't know.
Q6: Develop brownfield sites.
Q7: Yes.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: No.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Public Footpaths: 5
Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: Yes.
Q13: Schools, healthcare.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11718
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Graham Cooper
Yes. Any Local Plan must take all aspects into account with all residents views taken into account to have a good outcome.
Q1: Yes. I understand the need for growth, but any considered areas must take local resident views into account. Infrastructure must be one of the most important points, and what impact will development bring.
Q2: Yes. Any Local Plan must take all aspects into account with all residents views taken into account to have a good outcome.
Q3: Yes. When reading the consultations regarding the Brentwood Strategic Growth Options, it would appear to me that the most suitable options would be the Dunton Garden Suburb as the existing travel links are already in place.
Q4: As stated above [see Rep ID 11719] Dunton Garden Suburb would be most suitable. Very good travel links, which would help travel.
Q5: Yes. Only after all other options have been considered.
Q6: Brownfield sites would be better.
Q7: Yes. That's why Dunton Garden is a good plan.
Q8: Yes. The Town Centre should remain sustainable and improvements made.
Q9: No. Other than farmland there is not much open space left, that would be suitable.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - Peace: 5
Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: Yes.
Q13: Suitable housing with good transport links.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11739
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Thomas Lennon
Yes.
1) Social housing would be beneficial to allow growth in the villages, in particular brownfield sites.
2) A new bypass is essential to ensure increased traffic is diverted and not interrupt progress in the Town Centre.
3) This area offers the best option for housing and road networks.
Q1: Yes. All areas have separate issues to be considered.
Q2: Yes. 1) Social housing would be beneficial to allow growth in the villages, in particular brownfield sites. 2) A new bypass is essential to ensure increased traffic is diverted and not interrupt progress in the Town Centre. 3) This area offers the best option for housing and road networks.
Q3: Yes. Housing in these areas should be sympathetic to the local neighbourhoods.
Q4: The A127 Corridor offers the best opportunities for growth and development.
Q5: No. There appears to be enough scope for development alone for housing or new business interests to bring employment growth into the area.
Q6: No. In an ideal world it would be preferable to develop brownfield sites before intruding onto greenfield sites.
Q7: Yes. It is imperative that new sites sit in isolation and are served by separate networks in order not to intrude into housing development.
Q8: Yes. It is important that a Town Centre First approach is taken to improve retail development in order to promote growth in employment.
Q9: No this area is semi rural, there are two large playing fields with children's play areas and one small field with children's playground. To provide further open spaces would mean intrusion into the Green Belt areas.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4
Other - Public Footpaths: 5
Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Other - Public Footpaths: 4
Q12: Yes. New and much improved broadband connection would be a considerable asset.
Q13: This would be expensive (any figure, not known) but necessary.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11752
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs. Margaret Thorpe
No to Dunton Garden Suburb.
Q1: No. All areas with unused properties should be used first.
Q2: No to Dunton Garden Suburb.
Q3: Yes. Building on industrial estate will improve village.
Q4: Not on Green Belt.
Q5: Only if on brownfield sites.
Q6: Only brownfield sites.
Q7: No. A127 has already too much traffic on it.
Q9: No.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 2
Tranquility: 1
Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 1
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: Yes. The flooding resultant of the building on fenland (flood plain).
Q13: Adequate bus services.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11768
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Donald Mackenzie
Yes.
Q1: Yes.
Q2: Yes.
Q3: Yes. Doddinghurst does not have the infrastructure to support further development. Small school, shop car park already overflowing, narrow twisting roads in and out of village. The suggested development would substantially dilute the quality of life in this rural community.
Q5: No.
Q6: Brownfield sites should be given priority.
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: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 1
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: No.
Q13: To build new homes adjacent to easily accessible amenities such as shops and restaurants.