As a long term resident of Hutton and Shenfield and Warley I would not like to see the proposed development around this area on the brownfield sites for housing. My family mostly live all around here and for the sake of my grandchildren I would like to see a minimal amount of development.

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

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.

There is limited room for more housing due to the already congested road network in this area. The greenbelt and greenfield sites must be protected here as the housing density is already high.

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.

Q5: No - The A127 is much less used and still under the Brentwood Borough Council. It is also closer to Basildon which is better suited to accept hundreds of new families.

Q6: Brownfield sites would be more suitable. The facilities in Brentwood are already at breaking point on a Saturday as it is.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - Brentwood needs to be updated. Car parking, better shops and more family based business in the evenings. Bowling, cinema, swimming before any further homes are built.

Q12: No - Better across to the A12. Brook Street is grid locked every evening and on Saturdays. A third Brentwood access point to the A12 would work maybe off a Brownfield site.

Q13: Brentwood town first. Strategic road networks next then more houses.

Other comments: If the person who had photocopied the form had used double sided photocopying I would have answered the rest of the questions. This does not portray Brentwood Borough Council in a professional way.

My submission is a view on the proposed sites for the central Mountnessing area in general.

The A12 corridor has only two access points in the Brentwood area from the M25 junction right through to Chelmsford district. The main junction is by the Shenfield roundabout and the other, for Ingatestone, is only a partial junction allowing London bound traffic a on and off slip whereas Chelmsford bound traffic only has an on slip way and Northbound Ingatestone traffic has to all go through Mountnessing from the Shenfield junction. I would suggest that the Highways Agency is asked to consider creating an off slip way to ease traffic flows created by new housing coming on stream in the next few years.

My view is that development opportunities should be given priority where all the basic needs of residents are within easy reach and infrastructure already exists. This would be where public transport is within walking distance and there are adequate pedestrian footpaths available. With this in mind the infill green belt areas within the village envelope should be favourably considered before any developments away from the village centre. Thoby Priory is an exception to this as it will deal effectively with a difficult historical brownfield use of green belt and it will create a separate community within a mile of the village centre. Sites that do not impact street scene being behind existing housing should also be favoured against those sites that change the openness and feel of the main road street scene. Building density and style is another consideration as well planned and designed developments will enhance the area and bring positive gains to the village community.

The sites put up for consideration at the Ingatestone Garden Centre and land adjacent to the recycling centre would create coalescence between Mountnessing and Ingatestone that can be seen clearly in the image below [see attached].

The orange line shows what I feel is a natural boundary for the residential zone in the village centre. The two zones marked in yellow are shown as site references 073, 095a and 095b from the draft document. These sites present a natural infill and an acceptable expansion to the village centre. On site 95b affordable dwellings can be situated to be alongside the BBC housing estate whilst the rest of the site can have housing to reflect the private homes blend found in the area. The area is well screened and lays lower than adjacent existing houses to a screened boundary with the A12. Access to site 095b, direct from Roman Road, has been secured meaning that residents have easy access to the main road and public transport. A foot/cycle pathway could be formed to lead from the site through the Water Meadows, site 095a, to Church Road as a short route to the village centre.

I would ask that my submission is carefully considered as it is a good example of strategic growth in a area that can support additional homes.

[views submitted are personal and not that of the Parish Council in terms of the respondent's position as Parish Councillor]

see attached

see attached

I am the Infrastructure Planning Engineer for UK Power Networks, the host Distribution Network Operator (DNO)for most of Essex and Brentwood falls into my responsibility

Looking over the consultation documents I have a few comments:-
. Generally the estimate 350 houses proposed p.a. if dispersed across the area would not require major reinforcement to the electricity infrastructure. It may need local 11kV and LV works to provide connection directly to the sites or IDNO depending on the developers preferences. Charges for network extensions and connections are met by the developers involved. If centred in a few areas such as option 1 or 2 some reinforcement may be required.
. There is little detail in the consultation regarding employment and this can be more problematic depending the nature of the services, businesses or industry requiring connection to the distribution system. For example a large warehouse covers a large area but uses little power, where-as the same warehouse could be filled with data-centre technology and require the equivalent power of a small town. Again developers or individual companies can approach UKPN for estimates of connection costs for particular sites.
. Based on the existing electricity infrastructure the area to the north of the borough (Ongar) is a semi-rural type of network with overhead lines and few major substations (132/33kV Grid or 33/11kV Primary) and therefore would attract higher connection costs for major developments or large businesses. It is anticipated that a dispersed approach in this area would avoid major reinforcement and therefore housing needs would be met from existing major substations in this area.
. The A12 corridor is serviced with a major Grid substation to the north of Shenfield with strong 33kV interconnection through Brentwood towards Romford in the south west. This would accommodate most commercial and domestic requirements through the period with only the largest connections likely to require major network extension with potentially a need for a new Primary substation. It may be necessary to extend major circuits to help distribute through the area that would normally be achieved with underground cables.
. The A127 corridor and West Horndon and Dunton areas are well served by a recently reinforced Grid substation on the western outskirts of Basildon as well as a new Primary substation at the same location. An existing Primary substation at West Horndon could be reinforced if additional capacity was required. These substations are expected to meet most if not all requirements for housing and commercial/industrial development. Similarly to the A12 and network extensions of major circuits to help distribute through the area that would normally be achieved with underground cables.

I am more than happy for Brentwood Borough Council to contact me directly to discuss our infrastructure and plans through the OfGEM ED1 period 2015-2023.

see attached

Given the level of projected housing need with the Borough, sustainable development requires Brentwood Borough Council to consider all available and suitable sites across the rest of the Borough. Tha A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the BBC's increased housing needs, and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

The A127 Corridor is best suited to meet the needs of the borough. Should development in the A12 Corridor be necessary then infill sites within and on the edge of the urban area are preferable to developments on 'greenfield' sites around Herongate/Hutton and Running Waters/Hanging Hill Lane. The area enclosed by the A12 and the line of the Shenfield Road is obvious infill extending central Brentwood to the natural boundary of the A12. Additional A12 access would be beneficial. Education services, Beckett Keys and Shenfield High School, are already here, with, I assume, available capacity.

The A12 option makes sense in terms of availability of brown field sites. All the sites highlighted would have to be improved in terms of infrastructure. With the advent of cross rail the infrastructure capacity would have to be improved anyway so i don't believe that infrastructure capacity at present levels stands up as an argument against this proposal.

A12 corridor seems the most obvious area for development due to availability of brown field sites and existing infrastructure which will need to be expanded with the delivery of the crossrail link.

NO with the exception of green field sites - the urban envelope is clearly defined and any building on the edge puts the green belt and character of Brentwood at risk.

No - risk of green belt being degraded and character of town lost

Building to the rear of Herongate and Ingrave would be a distaster for the area, it shoild not be allowed,

The A12 corridor should only accommodate growth where existing brownfield sites are available for development. Releasing greenfield green belt land on the edge of urban areas should not be considered. The green belt was created as a security against urban sprawl and this objective should be honoured.

As per my response to questions 3 and 4, I consider development should take place in areas where the existing infrastructure can support it.

The A12 corridor sites would seem a far more suitable place for development than village sites. My main concern is the risk posed to safety. In question 3, I explained that a very real worry about the development in Doddinghurst would be the risk to child safety, with the increased traffic likely to impact where children cross roads and play.

Areas around the A12 corridor do not carry the same risk as they have appropriate infrastructure.

Yes to 024b Sawyers Hall as it is near to Brentwood town centre and would help the high street it is also near to Brentwood station. 089 site Brentwood centre again this would be a good site as well due to location. Both sites would be suitable for a mixed build of normal housing and affordable housing. Good schools and ameanaties are in the area. This will help Brentwood as a comunity.

I think that if the option is to go for the A12 corridor .
The best option is 024b Sawyers hall site. As it is near to Brentwood town centre and the high street . The site is also walk able distance to the station
good local amenities such as schools , doctors etc.. Help with householders walking to Brentwood and shopping less traffic. The site would be very good for a mixed build of normal housing and affordable housing

The next option would be 089 site Brentwood centre. This area could expand over a period of time and again is close by to Brentwood town centre. The site would be very good for a mixed build of normal housing and affordable housing

My least preference of all options is the 034 option officers meadow This site is not near to the Brentwood town centre and is the beginning of the green belt land going east. This is why Brentwood is such a mice environment to live in.

This area would not really be suitable for a mixed build as affordable housing will not remain affordable due the the Shenfield commuter land and cross rail effect. Its important to me that if any green belt land is to be used it has a high proportion of affordable housing on it . and that the affordable housing remains affordable to key workers for future generations.
The other two site i mention above have a much better chance of that.

I do not think that the Officer Meadow site 034 is suitable. This is due to the fact that the site will be a mixed build of affordable housing and normal housing. Due to Shenfield station and the cross rail effect the affordable housing built will probably not remain affordable. for future generations. If Green belt land has to be used its inporant that the affordable housing built on it remains affordable. As already discussed , if part of the A12 corridor is to be the option , 024b Sawyers Hall and 034 Brentwood centre may be better options

My preference would be for brown field sites to be utilised first and then 127 corridor.
And then North of the borough area
If the A12 corridor is required certain sites are more suitable ie
The Sawyers Hall site - 024b due to location of town centre High Street and that as a mixed build site affordable housing will remain affordable and good amenities
My next preference would be Brentwood centre 089 due to the fact that this area could be built well and have access to the A12.

The A12 corridor contains most of the developed Town Centres in the borough and most of the sites proposed seem to be carparks which if removed will create greater problems and will not maintain a vibrant town centre as there will be no where for visitors to the town to park and therefore they will either try and park in adjacent residential streets or not bother to visit the towns at all, with this drop off in visitors new shops will not be viable and the major chains will vacate the town centre,

The edge of town sites are the best options as further development of small one and two bed units within the town centres will create a log term problem for those who wish to remain in the town centres been unable to find suitable accomdation .The removal of carparks within the town centres does not seem to be a wise move as it will store up problems for those centres as a destination unless managed in a stragetic way . The Essex Study on carparking provision that BBC has adopted is quite clear on this matter

I am extremely concerned by the proposal to potentially develop as housing sites large swathes of the wooded farmland in between Hutton and Ingrave/Herongate. This proposal is in no way appropriate for the character of the area. Green Belt farmland is a significant part of the local area's character and heritage. I have lived in Brentwood almost all my life, 40 years, and count myself extremely fortunate to have this beautiful open space so near to my home. It would be an absolute travesty if our precious Green Belt space was to be lost in an attempt to solve London's housing problems - especially since there are plentiful brownfield sites within the M25 in need of beautification and redevelopment. In the Brentwood area, the A127 corridor is much more appropriate for housing development, as it can be supported by the Basildon infrastructure.

Brentwood is already over-developed and over-crowded and the transport infrastructure, both road and rail, is creaking at the seams. The capacity simply does not exist to cope with large numbers of additional homes.

A limited amount of small development could be catered for at some of the sites, namely the South East corner of the map and the Ingatestone area.