Sites should be chosen that have the least impact on the continuing urbanisation of the area. Further developement in the already largely developed areas should be kept to a minmum.

Would it not be more prudent to release small infill plots within the Green Belt which in reality are scrubland and have no other use other than housing, rather than releasing large areas of open countryside which is the real Green Belt we should be protecting.

If you were to look at the amount of "infill" plots that are available for development within village locations, then surely this would help achieve the figures set out by the government before releasing large areas of our real Green Belt Land.

See attached document

Dear Sir or Madam
Brentwood Strategic Growth Options Consultation (January 2015)
Thank you for your letter dated 5 January consulting English Heritage on the
above document. We would like to make the following comments
Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas for the purposes of
considering approaches to growth?
We do not have a strong view on the division of the borough into three broad
areas, which we recognise is to help consider growth options. As paragraph
2.13 notes, each of the areas should not be considered in isolation. In the
case of the historic environment, specific heritage assets might be shared
between more than one area (e.g. Thorndon Hall Registered Park and
Garden), and so could be impacted on by growth proposals in each area.
Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?
We broadly agree with the issues raised for each area in paragraphs 2.14 to
2.19. The historic environment forms an important part of the issues and
options for each area in terms of where to potentially locate new development.
This includes designated heritage assets but also non-designated assets such
as sites of archaeological interest. We would expect proper assessment of the
historic environment and potential impacts when making decisions about
where to locate development.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular
sites?
Due to time and resource constraints we have not been able to assess every
site in great detail. Our comments on the sites have been based mainly on
desk-top analysis, and we have not been able to judge the potential impacts
more accurately on the ground. Even with the strategic sites, we have only
been able to carry out rapid site visits in limited cases and have not had the
opportunity to ascertain precise impacts. We have focussed on those sites
with the potential for the greatest historic environment impact. This does not mean there are no issues with any other site and we reserve the right to
comment further on any site as and when proposals develop.
Please note that we have not considered areas of archaeological interest
beyond scheduled monuments in most cases, nor have we looked at historic
landscape issues beyond registered historic parks & gardens. However,
wider archaeological and landscape impacts are important considerations and
need to be factored into site assessment. The possible cumulative impact of
a number of site allocations in one location could cause significant harm to the
historic environment. Advice from conservation and archaeological staff at
borough and county levels should be sought, along with consultation of the
County Historic Environment Record (HER) for specific heritage assets.
In terms of site assessments in relation to heritage assets, care should be
taken to avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its
distance from, or intervisibility with, a potential site. Site allocations which
include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may
offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while
conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage
asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.
The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:
* Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site
allocation at an appropriate scale
* Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets
on or within its vicinity
* Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of
heritage asset
* Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including
reasonable alternatives sites * Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
* Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be
removed or reduced
Q4: Which of the sites along the A127 Corridor is the best location for
growth?
The document notes the potential for larger growth opportunities in the A127
corridor, with a residential-led mixed used allocation at West Horndon or a
cross boundary development at Dunton (English Heritage has responded
separately to the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation). The consultation
suggests that development would only occur at either West Horndon or
Dunton, but in the event that both are pursued, we would have reservations
about the cumulative impact and extent of urbanisation along the A127
corridor, which could harm various heritage assets. We would expect in such
a scenario for an adequate buffer between West Horndon and Dunton and
important heritage assets.
Within West Horndon site 038B includes the southern limits of the Thorndon
Hall Registered Park and Garden (Grade II* listed) and Thorndon Park
Conservation Area. This southerly projection is separated from the main Park
and Garden and conservation area by the A127, but the issue of severance must have been considered at the time of designation (in 1987 and 1993
respectively). Housing development on the designated area would result in
harm to its character and appearance, and development abutting its
boundaries might also result in a degree of harm.
On site 162 at Little Warley there is a proposal for an elderly care facility. This
site abuts Little Warely Hall, which dates from the early 16th century and is
listed at Grade II*, together with the Church of St Peter, which dates from the
15th and 17th centuries and is listed at Grade I. Development of an elderly
care facility on this site is likely to adversely impact on the setting of both
these highly graded heritage assets. Sites 058A and 058B on the east side of
Little Warely Hall Lane are also in close proximity to these assets, but well
designed and appropriately scaled housing may be less harmful compared to
the current recycling and HGV operations on site 058A.
Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on
the edge of urban areas?
The report notes that brownfield land within the urban areas might be
efficiently developed in order to minimise pressure on Green Belt releases.
English Heritage broadly agrees with this approach, though we note that a
number of brownfield sites are in close proximity to designated heritage
assets and the design of any developments would need to have special
regard to the setting of these assets.
In terms of releasing sites on the edge of urban areas, this again depends on
the exact location in terms of impact on the historic environment. Very
significant areas of green belt land to the east and southeast of Hutton/east of
Ingrave and Herongate is included in the report and much of this land has
implications for a large number of heritage assets. The Sustainability
Appraisal seems to underplay the impact of this location on the historic
environment, ranking it third out of five potential options for strategic growth.
We would argue that it ranks lower than that. On the extreme eastern edge of Hutton is the Hutton village conservation
area. This conservation area has an open rural setting apart from where it
abuts existing housing on the northern half of its western boundary, and
includes Hutton Hall (Grade II* listed) and the 14th century Church of All Saints
(Grade II* listed) plus a number of other buildings listed at Grade II. The
conservation area also includes areas of open land that make a positive
contribution to its character and appearance. Development sites 033, 211
and 219 all lie within the conservation area and English Heritage cannot see
how they could come forward for development without resulting in significant
harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area, as well as
adversely impacting on the setting of some of listed buildings. Sites 008,
008B and 008C are all likely to adversely impact on wider setting of the
conservation area and the more immediate setting of Hutton House, along
with its walled garden and stables (all listed at Grade II). Site 028C is a large
site that abuts the south east and southwest boundaries of the conservation
area, where development is likely to result in harm to the rural character and
appearance of the conservation area and would also have the potential to
adversely impact on the setting of the Church of All Saints and Hutton Hall (both Grade II* listed). The western boundary of Site 028C also abuts the
boundary of Heatleys, a 16th century Grade II house, and development in this
area would have implications for the setting of this house.
Sites 028A and 028B abut the southeast built edge of Hutton. Development
in this area would have implications for the setting of a number of listed
buildings including Hare Hall (Grade II listed) Heatleys (Grade II) listed and
Kennel House (Grade II listed). It may also have implications for the wider
setting of the Thorndon Park Conservation Area and Thorndon Hall
Registered Park and Garden (Grade II*), as well as longer views out from
Thorndon Hall (Grade I listed).
Site 192 is another large site which adjoins the south of site 028C and is
located to the east of Ingrave and Herongate. This site completely enclosed a
scheduled moated site at Heron Hall, together with the 17th century Grade II
listed Hall and stables and the Grade II* listed granary. This complex of
heritage assets currently enjoys a remote rural setting, and historically the
medieval house sited within the moat would have commanded all this
surrounding land. Development of the land around these heritage assets
would therefore result in significant change to their setting and harm to their
significance.
Site 212 is located to the southwest of the Great Warley conservation area
and, while this site is unlikely to have an impact on the conservation area, it
has the potential to adversely impact on the setting of the Thatched Cottage
and The Squirrels (both dating from the 19th century and listed at Grade II).
This site currently comprises Coombe Wood, which would appear to be of
some landscape and ecological value. Northwest of Great Warley is site 167.
Again this site is sufficiently remote from the conservation area and
Registered Park and Garden, but abuts the northern boundary of Hill Cottage
(Grade II listed) and is in relatively close proximity to Great Ropers, an 18th
century house listed at Grade II*.
Site 218 on the edge of Shenfield lies close to a cluster of listed buildings at
Shenfield Hall, including the Grade II hall and Grade II* Church of St Mary.
There should be assessment of potential impacts. Q6: In the North of the Borough, is it preferable to release greenfield or
brownfield sites?
As noted in the document, the North of the Borough is made up of a collection
of villages set amidst attractive landscape (although it is wrong to simply
consider the landscape as 'natural', as it will contain many historic elements).
In terms of specific sites:
Blackmore
The village includes a designated conservation area that contains a number of
listed buildings forming this historic core of the settlement and some open
land of historic interest that also makes a positive contribution to the character
and appearance of the conservation area. Site 052 is located in the conservation area on land to the rear of Little
Jericho. Little Jericho is a grade II listed house dating from c1600 and the
vacant barn/farm buildings to its rear may be curtilage listed. They may also
make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the
conservation area. Whilst a scheme for the careful adaptation of the farm
buildings into residential use may be acceptable, their demolition and
wholesale redevelopment of the site could well result in harm to the historic
environment.
Site 202 is located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the
conservation area and the loss of open rural views out of the conservation
area (especially from the path that defines this boundary of the conservation
area) is likely to be harmful to the character and appearance of the
conservation area. Site 199 is to the northeast of the conservation area and
would be less likely to impact on its setting, especially if the southern edge of
the development was given a soft and green boundary.
Sites 076 and 077 are both further away from the conservation area, but both
have Grade II listed buildings in close proximity, and development could
adversely impact on the setting of these listed buildings. It might be possible
to bring forward development on both sites that successfully addresses the
issue of setting for these listed building, but it would be necessary to first
understand how setting contributes to their significance.
Hook End
While there is not conservation area in Hook End, there are a number of
Grade II listed buildings that might be affected by development proposals. A
number of these listed buildings are farmhouses that would historically have
been linked to the adjacent open farmland. Loss of this open farmland could
therefore impact on their signficance. In particular site 174 is immediately to
the west of a collection of three Grade II buildings comprising Hook End
Poultry Farmhouse, brewhouse and barn, while Site 183 is to the south west
of Barfield Farmhouse and south east of Deal Tree Farmhouse. Other sites
that may have implications for the setting of designated heritage assets
include 209 (impacting on the Soap House, Grade II), 056A & 056B
(impacting on The Cottage, Grade II) and 196 (impacting on a cluster of
Grade II listed assets comprising a pump, cartlodge, granary and Wyatts
Farmhouse). Thoby Priory
Site 018 incorporates the ruins of Thoby Priory, which is a Scheduled
Monument and listed Grade II. The priory ruins are also on the English
Heritage 'at risk' list. The priory would have been sited in a remote location
suitably for the contemplative life, but that setting has been compromised in
recent years. English Heritage accepts that a development with housing
located to the west and north of the designated assets, whilst retaining an
open aspect to the south and east, could be acceptable, especially if it also
provided for the improved management of the heritage assets.
Kelvedon Hatch A number of possible sites are identified around the periphery of Kelvedon
Hatch. Those on the east side of the settlement have minimal implications for
the historic environment. There are a number of designated heritage assets
(both listed and scheduled) on the west side of the settlement, but most of
these are to the west of A128 and are therefore likely to be adequately
buffered from developments on sites 217 and 194, which are located on the
east side of the A road. There is a smaller site at 074 which may have
implications for the setting of St Nicholas's Church (Grade II). This church is
currently sited on the edge of the settlement and enclosing its open aspect to
the south might result in a degree of harm.
Q7: Do you agree that the most sustainable approach to employment
need is to allocation new sites close to the strategic highway network?
The map on page 22 of the document identifies a number of potential
employment sites. These sites are generally located in close proximity to
existing transport corridors and/or adjacent to current employment sites, and
the majority will have little adverse impact on designated heritage assets. The
exceptions are sites 109 and 187, which are adjacent to East Hordon Hall
(16th and 18th century and Grade II listed). While the setting of the Hall has
already been compromised by the A127 (which passes immediately to the
north) and the existing employment land to the east of the Hall, further
employment buildings in close proximity would exacerbate the existing harm.
Q8: Do you agree that a town centre first approach should be taken to
retail development?
We broadly agree with this approach as it is should help to maintain the vitality
of town centres which in turn can benefit heritage assets within these
locations. It will depend on specific proposals and their impact, but there are
opportunities in places like Brentwood Town Centre to secure enhancements.
In terms of retail site options for Brentwood Town Centre, our 2013 comments
have highlighted specific heritage assets for some of the sites shown in this
consultation. In many respects, Site 100 (Baytree Centre) is the most
important in terms of opportunities to enhance the historic environment, given
its access off the High Street from within the conservation area, and the
proximity of several listed buildings plus a scheduled monument (the chapel).
We would welcome further discussions regarding this site.
Q9: No comments
Q10: Landscape value
Section 5 of this consultation puts heritage into a separate category detached
from other environmental considerations, rather than include it as part of the
overall environmental picture. Figure 15 should include designated heritage
assets, particularly conservation areas, scheduled monuments and registered
parks and gardens. We note the intention to produce further assessment of
landscape capacity surrounding urban areas in paragraph 5.6. We strongly
recommend that this assessment includes the historic environment as a key
component of landscape capacity. Our comments on specific sites reveal the
extent of heritage assets surrounding the urban areas, and this should be
considered in any decisions on suitable sites. The Local Plan evidence base does not appear to contain any specific references to the historic environment,
and we recommend this is addressed.
Q11: No comments
Q12: Infrastructure Issues
The provision of new or improved infrastructure such as transport can have
implications for the historic environment in terms of impact on specific heritage
assets. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan and related work should consider
such issues. In addition, the historic environment can form part of different
types of infrastructure, from community facilities to historic transport
structures. It also contributes to green infrastructure, which is more than just
the natural environment. Publicly accessible parks and gardens,
archaeological sites and spaces within conservation areas and listed buildings
can all form part of existing and proposed green infrastructure networks, with
opportunities to conserve and enhance such elements.
Q13: No comments
We hope that the above comments are of assistance. If you have any queries
or would like to discuss specific points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

It is noted that a number of existing or former sports facilities (community, school and commercial) have been put forward as potential development sites in the list in Appendix 1. It is acknowledged that no decisions have been made at this stage about whether any of these will progress to site allocations. If the Council is minded to allocate any of these sites for development at a subsequent stage of the local plan process the Council should ensure that any allocation accords with Government planning policy in paragraphs 70-74 of the NPPF especially the criteria in para 74. In accordance with this policy, sports facilities should only be allocated for development if replacement provision is made or if a local assessment of facility needs confirms that the facility is clearly surplus to requirements. It is understood that the Council is preparing an assessment of sports facility needs as part of its local plan evidence base which should inform decisions.

The Council will be aware of Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. To avoid potential objections and delays at a later date if any existing or former playing field sites are allocated for development, it is advised that discussions take place with Sport England before any site allocations are included in a future consultation document. Advice can be provided on how our concerns could be potentially addressed.

The sites in appendix 1 that these comments apply to are as follows:

008B - Woodlands School, Hutton
016B - Woodlands School, Great Warley
044 - Land at Priest Lane, Brentwood
089 - Brentwood Centre
141 - Brentwood Leisure Park
200 - East of A128/South of A127 (Golf Course)
231 - North of A127

In section 3.6 on Planning for Gypsies and travellers it mentions "mixed-use development at a new strategic allocation" The use of the singular here is not appropriate

In the government document for communities "Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide" It recommends that the size of sites for Gypsys and Travellers should be at most 15 pitches. The Brentwood requirement for new pitches exceeds this figure. According to the "Essex Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment", the borough will need to provide an extra 59 pitches by 2033 This means that either existing sites will need to be enlarged where there is scope or at least four new allocations will be needed in the borough.

In 3.8 it says that pitches should be planned in allocations "such as options witin the A127 Corridor" The local residents in the A127 corridor including those nearby in Basildon will not accept an overlarge allocation in this area especially since the Basildon target for new pitches is even larger. This paragraph is trying to misslead the population of Brentwood into believing that the allocation of pitches will not affect the A12 corridor but this will not be possible.

This section of the Strategic Growth Options is aiming to encourage the Brentwood population to favour the A127 corridor for development and especially the Dunton Garden Suburb site in order to keep developments away from the A12 corridor. Any decision must be based on Evidence Based comments and not on peoples desire to confine new development to areas away from where they live.

Any sites chosen for development should not be out of keeping with what currently exists and should not be permitted if there would be any significant change the the character of an area.

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.

My principle concern with this proposal is with the additional strains on infrastructure, which to be frank, I fail to see being addressed other than in the most ridiculous spin.
Over the past 10 years I have see our infrastructure deteriorate as it overloads. This will only get worse as the poplulation increases. As such, please respond to the following:
* Please confirm exactly how public transport will improve to accommodate the needs of commuters - e.g. will the platforms at Brentood station be extended so as to accommodate longer trains? You mention "more frequent" trains. Such services are already frequent, but they are overcrowded.
* I recently had to wait 3 weeks for a doctor's appointment, whereas 10 years ago I could see a doctor in a couple of days or so. What specific consideration is being afforded to new surgeries, A&E and other appropriate heathcare facilities? What is the Political Risk to any such healthcare investment given the forthcoming General Election?
* Given the problems that Basildon Council had with the Crays Hill Travellers Site, why does Brentwood Council feel obliged to establish a similar site within our borough?
* Why is the Council is being seemingly bullied into accepting the addition of 5,500 homes, which could mean >20,000 citizens arriving in the Borough, when there are large brownfield sites in the immediate surrounds of London (e.g. the Dagenham Ford site) that can easily be developed.
* What is the cost benefit for existing residents, especially with regard to Council Tax?
* Has consideration been afforded to the fact that we may actually like wide open spaces (including Greenbelt land), and believe it MUST be protected?
I will be objecting to all aspects of this proposal, unless a satisfactory explanation is given to my points above.

Thank you for your swift response. In addition, I have certain other observations:

The addition of so many homes will require additional investment in the emergency services, i.e. Police, Fire and Ambulance. What provision is being made to ensure that such a dramatic increase in population (perhaps 25-30% based on the current population estimated at 71,000) can be policed and served adequately? Crime would be a particular concern especially with the proposal for Gypsy/Travellers sites within the Borough. What steps will be taken to ensure that such Gypsies/Travellers pay Council Tax?

With regard to the problem of parking in the town centre, what provision is being made to ensure that an additional proportion of cars can actually park in what is an already inadequately provisioned town centre? The council has a poor track record with regard to road repairs (e.g. pot holes). How will roads structurally cope with such an influx of vehicles?

Please note that these and my previous points / observations apply to all aspects of this planning process including, but not limited to, the Dunton Garden Suburb plan.

see attached

The A127 Corridor and then infilling within the A12 corridor are preferable as they have better transport links and either already have, or have capacity to develop, other services. North of the Borough has been identified as having very poor transport links and would require additional services, adding further to transport, utility and infrastructure problems. Given these issues, any necessary development North of the Borough must link directly to larger roads and not require access through existing, increasingly congested, residential streets. Sites, such as 143 and 185, are therefore inappropriate for development having no such direct access.

.

Definitely against it. Want it to remain as it is.

I wholeheartedly object to development within the North of the borough. In my opinion the outlying villages and settlements within this area are developed enough, and the current infrastructure is not adequate enough to support any further development.

I do support development of the A127 corridor, as this has good transport links and is ideally suited for growth. There are sites within the A12 corridor which are suited for growth also.

I am very worried about all the new developments in the Brentwood area. The traffic is bad enough as it is and any further build would be a nightmare for travelling.

Support A127, oppose A12. The A12 sites 219, 211, and 033 are all within or the Hutton Village Conservation Area. Local services - sewerage, internet - are all over stretched. Sites )28C/192/183 - 'finger' of Hutton Hall Wood within this area contains bluebells which are protected species under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

I do not feel a block developement is the answer & certainly not on Greenbelt to any proposals & building on brownfield should be the best option where possible

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

To whom it may concern!
My husband and I did not move out of East and South East London forty odd years ago to now have the threat of living out retirement seeing our Green Belt being developed for housing estates.
Also we object to being included with London as a Borough (of Brentwood).

There are many priority ancient woodland and deciduous woodland Local Wildlife Sites in this area. Any sites allocated for development should be selected on the basis that there will be no adverse impacts on these designated sites; impacts would include increased recreational pressure, pet predation and severance of important wildlife corridors.

Planners should create "green infrastructure" masterplans which aim to enhance linkages between and habitat "buffers" around these designated sites. GI masterplans should be developed prior to plans for built development and their primary focus should be protecting and enhancing biodiversity. Development should include the generous provision of recreational green space.

Having looked over some of the brown field sites I don't think many of them are appropriate, nor would they give the type of housing required for a good standard of living. Build affordable houses over flats.

There is a strategic requirement to consider Crossrail implications. Building on an already overcrowded station carpark would diminish this requirement. Building on locations like this have a negative impact on the infrastructure of the local area. Building on adjacent urban areas is a better alternative, given the option of not building has been taken away from a national level.

The green belt land around the villages of Herongate and Ingrave should not be viewed as potential sites for housing. Firstly the land is green belt which should mean something. It is not an area for building but an area to continue preserving the diversity of communities. It should remain green, it should preserve the practice of farming, it should allow the villages to continue as villages (there are so few left in the area already). This area has already endured a major road being developed right through it's heart, which means at certain times of the day that one side is nearly cut off from the other. The traffic generated from more housing will only exacerbate the issue further. There is also not enough in the way of provision for so many new residents in all sectors: health, education or transport.Another other obvious problem is the loss of habitats and species from the Green belt land - we cannot afford to allow this to happen, it should be green belt land not urban land. we need to look after our world, starting with that which is local to us especially.

I object to the proposed development, for the following reasons:

1. Lose of wildlife habitat in the Green Belt;
2. Road congestion;
3. Urban sprawl;
4. Too many traveller pitches;
5. Flood risk;
6. Pollution impact;
7. Pressure on local infrastructure such as hospitals and police.

I have lived in this area for most of my life, and have enjoyed the countryside and local amenities. If this project went ahead it would put too much pressure on all the whole infrastructure and this area would become a nightmare to live and work in.

I am writing to formally register my objection to Brentwoods Strategic Growth Options Consultation, due to the negative impact I believe it will have on the surrounding communities, wildlife, green belt areas and travel routes.

Some of my questions and concerns are as follows:
1. Why is greenbelt land now being considered for declassification in and around the Brentwood & Basildon area?
2. Isn't Green Belt Land protected to stop developments and urban sprawl?
3. What, if any, consideration has been given to the wildlife that will be impacted with such a large scale development on greenbelt land?
3. With such a large scale proposal why hasn't the local communities been properly consulted and informed?
4. Why is it seen that the A127 has a better scope for improvements and expansion than the A12 when nothing has been done to tackle the current congestion level for existing traffic and basics such as straightening out the Fortune of War roundabout as this has been deemed far too expensive for so many years? Widening of the A127 will only consume more Green Belt Land.
5. Why does Brentwood Council appear to favour the majority of its developments at its most extreme of borders affecting towns other than its own?
6. Why is the deadline for this consultation so short when it will affect so many?

I object to the proposed development, for the following reasons:

1. Lose of wildlife habitat in the Green Belt;
2. Road congestion;
3. Urban sprawl;
4. Too many traveller pitches;
5. Flood risk;
6. Pollution impact;
7. Pressure on local infrastructure such as hospitals and police.

I have lived in this area for most of my life, and have enjoyed the countryside and local amenities. If this project went ahead it would put too much pressure on all the whole infrastructure and this area would become a nightmare to live and work in.

I object to the proposed development, for the following reasons:

1. Lose of wildlife habitat in the Green Belt;
2. Road congestion;
3. Urban sprawl;
4. Too many traveller pitches;
5. Flood risk;
6. Pollution impact;
7. Pressure on local infrastructure such as hospitals and police.

I have lived in this area for most of my life, and have enjoyed the countryside and local amenities. If this project went ahead it would put too much pressure on all the whole infrastructure and this area would become a nightmare to live and work in.

Re: Objection to development on green belt


This letter is to state that I categorically object to Brentwood's Strategic Growth Options Consultations and any future development on green belt land.


After only a little research you can see there are large areas of greenbelt around the country that will soon be diminished to make way for housing. This is the whole purpose of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl. I find it astonishing that it has even been suggested for such huge developments.


I believe the deadline for this consultation should be extended as it apparent that not many residents are aware of it and therefore not having the opportunity to object.


I have not been able to do a thorough response as only just been made aware of these proposals.

I would like you to register my OBJECTION to Brentwoods Strategic Growth Options Consultation for the following reasons:

I do not believe that any greenbelt land should be built on, and that brown field sites should be used instead, or derelict buildings and un-used factories. Greenbelt land was put into place to stop urban sprawl, I do not believe this should be changed. An example of greenbelt land is around the villages of Herongate and Ingrave, land mentioned in the Domesday book. An example of our heritage that could be lost forever should it be agreed that greenbelt land can be built on.

South East England, particularly Essex, is an area that is already full to the brim. Our public services are already stretched, including our hospitals, GP surgeries, schools, roads and police. Big projects such as Dunton Garden Suburb will put impossible strain on these public services. Therefore I do not think that the main infrastructure issues have been addressed at all.

Re: Objection to development on green belt

This letter is to state that I categorically object to Brentwood's Strategic Growth Options Consultations and any future development on green belt land.

After only a little research you can see there are large areas of greenbelt around the country that will soon be diminished to make way for housing. This is the whole purpose of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl. I find it astonishing that it has even been suggested for such huge developments

I believe the deadline for this consultation should be extended as it apparent that not many residents are aware of it and therefore not having the opportunity to object.

I have not been able to do a thorough response as only just been made aware of these proposals.

This absolutely must not be allowed to go ahead.