see attached

Just to say that:

I approve of the Dunton Garden Suburbs Development
I am totally opposed to any releasing on Greenbelt land around villages, I am okay with Brownfield sites.

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.

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

This area, the northern part of the borough, is the green lungs of Brentwood. Development should be restricted to brownfield sites only, and the spread of villages towards each other restricted as much as possible.

see attached

I would prefer that brownfield sites were developed if this were necessary.

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

see attached

The Parish Council has looked at the Strategic Growth Options document and has come to the following conclusions.

It supports the Plan and the proposal to develop along the A127 Corridor and the Dunton Garden Suburb. We see this joint venture with Basildon Borough Council as a very strategic and sensible way of delivering the required number of houses to meet Government criteria without overly burdening parts of the Borough that do not have the infrastructure to support any reasonably sized development.

This proposal also takes the strain off small Parishes within the Borough and should eliminate the need to develop on inappropriate Green Belt within the Parishes. We are of course mindful that a large chunk of Green Belt will be used to deliver the government requirements in the West Horndon area. However, given the scale of the development, local infrastructure can be put in place and a new rail station is proposed (although not agreed by Network Rail as yet). The A127 road would also get some significant improvements which it is very much in need of.

The consultation document includes many sites within our Parish that we would find unpalatable for development. However, it has been pointed on numerous occasions that these have to be included if they have been proposed at any time, otherwise the LDP document can be deemed as inadmissible. The need to build on these sites is greatly reduced if the larger Dunton Garden Suburb scheme is adopted.

To sum up, we recommend to Brentwood Borough Council that the Parish Council supports the proposed Dunton proposed plan and is in favour of transport corridor led development predominantly along the A127. It does not however support the development of the Green Belt within the smaller parished areas, as with Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green, and feel that the infrastructure would not accommodate such development.

Brownfield sites should always be considered over and above greenfield sites. Occasionally there may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages could be considered to enable opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. This should only be once brownfield sites have been exhausted and where such development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. The number of Green Belt sites put forward around West Horndon would not do this. The village would become a small town and would be extremely harmful to the existing community.

It is preferable to develop Brownfield sites rather that greenfield sites assuming appropriate transport links and other services are also available.

Brownfield sites would be a preferable option ,however,the villages already have issues with isolation due to poor transport infrastructures. economically the villages are also suffering in terms of small businesses and losing facilities such as libraries and post offices. Congestion on the roads due to excessive parking and the use of smaller roads as rat runs are also issues that need consideration. Any development should therefore include the improvement of transport links and existing services (community tariff?). emphasis should also be placed on village requirements in terms of housing, elderly residents and first time buyers.

Development around villages should only be on brown field sites

Limit to brown field only

Build on brown field sites only

Rather than seek to build new homes, action should be taken to tackle the problem of vacant residential properties. Severe council tax penalties can be used to "encourage" their sale or letting. If development is still necessary, only brownfield sites should be considered.
Use of greenfield sites on the edge of villages should be avoided at all costs. These areas contribute to the special natural environment in which these villages exist and ensure the "beautiful green environment" that the borough says they want their residents to enjoy.
Retaining our green spaces is essential for a healthy and beautiful environment.

I agrre with this solution if we have used up all the brown field sites and that we need the housing

It is preferable to develop brownfield sites over greenfield sites.

There is an obvious case for maintaining the countryside and preserving wildlife habitations. However, as I have said in my responses to questions 3, 4 and 5, the greenfield areas are not equipped to take on the extra growth. Increased traffic volumes would pose a serious risk to child and public safety. In particular, most villages have a school bus service, which collect and drop off children. These children walk to the bus stops and cross village roads, which are currently relatively risk free. Growth would bring more traffic to areas which could not absorb it.

In contrast, brownfield sites have the transport infrastructure - traffic and pedestrian management features - which could accommodate growth. There would be far fewer risks in these areas.

In addition, greenfield areas do not have the services and amenities to serve increases in population. This would mean that growth will lead to much higher levels of car use, so that amenities further afield could be accessed. Again, this leads to congestion and risks, (The number of accidents on Doddinghurst Road is already high - it would only increase if greenfield sites in this area were released).

In summary, it is preferable to develop brownfield sites, as greenfield sites are just not equipped for growth and this could lead to serious risk to child and public safety.

No comment

Development of brownfield sites

The Green Belt should be left alone as per the results and promises from your recent consultation procedure. There is already considerable development going on at some of these locations where industrial units have been replaced with residential. The public services in these locations have been diminished and been replaced over the years and it would take considerable expense to provide the appropriate levels of support. I am not in favour of using any green belt land.

It is clear that Orchard Piece and Woollard Way were built in the 1960s with an eye for expansion. But, on reflection, should we build out to Red Rose Lane? Does the central part of the village have sufficient infrastructure for 100+ homes? I doubt.

The Villages could not cope with an increase in population without a massive improvement in infrastructure. In our own village of Kelvedon Hatch, the roads are already very congested and parking is a real issue. This is especially evident in School road where access and parking for the School is very congested and dangerous.

The Sewer system is overloaded, and has had many problems, including flooding homes with raw sewage on more than one occasion, and couldn't cope with extra waste. A new sewer would have to be installed.

The electricity supply (overhead to some houses) is not good, water pressure is low and both would need to be upgraded if any new homes are proposed.

The area would also require better access to Doctors (already over 2 weeks to get an appointment), better Public Transport, and more school places.

Any development is dependant on infrastructure improvements, please see question 3 response.

Over development of rural villages without sufficient infrastructure