Question 3
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10301
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Ms Penny Patterson
I think brownfield and regeneration sites should be considered wherever possible.
The transport and road links are not suitable for some of the expansions mentions - this particularly applies to the villages north of Brentwood. In many areas there are not enough doctors and schools to take the extra residents.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10314
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Samantha Law
Option A North of the Borough is not appropriate due to the lack of transport and local facilities as well as the impact on current residents.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10325
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Professor Peter Clegg
I suggest that choice of either the North of the Borough and A12 Corridor sites would have substantial transport implications.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10358
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Laura Fairweather
Yes. Hutton South/Central would unsuitable options. These areas are already built up and the current infrastructure is already over stretched. A12 corridor would hopefully not be considered as suitable despite the open land.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10379
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Paul Measday
Yes. The A12 corridor option is not feasible given existing capacity constraints and the adverse effects on valuable greenfield land.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10436
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mr John Hughes
Yes. Any development in area A. North of the Borough must only be small scale and preferably have some affordable housing. The infrastructure in these areas is not suitable for anything more than a few houses in each area. The schools could not take much more intake at this time and the public transport and general access is not suitable for large developments.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10448
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Barbara J. Meacher
Villages like Herongate and Ingrave would be totally unable to cope with a large influx of new housing. There are no facilities to cope with the extra children, cars etc.
Q1: No - The proposed amount of new houses is preposterous. It will have a massive impact on greenfield sites, roads, schools etc will be unable to cope with large numbers of new houses and the people who live in them.
Q2: No - No, I find it insulting that these enormous issues are being planned without our approval and blessing. No doubt greedy developers are rubbing their hands with glee at the profits to be made.
Q3: Yes - Villages like Herongate and Ingrave would be totally unable to cope with a large influx of new housing. There are no facilities to cope with the extra children, cars etc.
Q4: Land between West Horndon and Laindon.
Q5: Yes - Yes, but in moderation.
Q6: Develop brownfield sites only.
Q7: Yes - Within reason! Yes.
Q8: Yes - Not so many restaurants and pubs but a vibrant High Street with a good variety of shops. Also keep the multi-storey car park. Otherwise the Ongar Road will be constantly blocked with traffic.
Q9: No - We are within easy reach of greenfield sites and woodland, I hope this will always remain like this.
Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 2
Tranquility: 5
Q11:
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 1
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 1
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 3
Other - Lovely Country Parks: 3
Q12: Yes - The proposed amount of housing is far too high, the infrastructure cannot possibly cope with this! Pressurise the government to reduce this amount.
Q13: Improve buses and make them more frequent.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10469
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mr Graham Penn
Obviously use Brownfield sites first.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10483
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Peter Ryan
Blackmore has been earmarked for various sites. Blackmore is famed for its "pretty village" feel and developments on the scale as proposed would damage this. Also Blackmore has limited school places for under 11s already and increased population will cause additional pressure.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10497
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Sophia Severn
No further development in Blackmore.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10514
Received: 13/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Michael Bromley
The great enlargement of West Horndon will require greater sewerage provision. All F.W. is pumped by rising main and 30+ year old pumps of limited capacity to the sewage works miles away. S.W. is also partly into the system in flood times. There have been 5 floods since 1962. See Q12.
Q1: Yes.
Q2: No - Just because the "Fenland Landscape" in the A127 corridor is different from north of the Borough. It is no less valuable as landscape. Flood risk in West Horndon is a serious problem. Has the safety of the Thorndon Park dam been considered.
Q3: Yes - The great enlargement of West Horndon will require greater sewerage provision. All F.W. is pumped by rising main and 30+ year old pumps of limited capacity to the sewage works miles away. S.W. is also partly into the system in flood times. There have been 5 floods since 1962. See Q12.
Q4: Before a decision is made to develop at West Horndon, the flood risk must be assessed and solutions found to reduce it to an acceptable level. Land in flood risk areas should not be developed.
Q5: Yes.
Q6: Only when brownfield sites are used up should greenfield/ Green Belt land be developed.
Q7: Yes.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: The park in Cadogan Avenue, West Horndon is little used. Access for vehicles is non existent and will be very difficult to provide from village roads.
Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 3
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 2
Historic Interest: 2
Tranquility: 4
Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 3
Q12: No - West Horndon flooding. Stream from Thorndon Park flows around the village and under the railway. SW drains flow also under the railway all on to flat farmland. It is unlikely that extra SW can be got away quicker. Flood insurance in parts of West Horndon is not available.
Q13: Studies in detail of foul and surface water requirements, with design and cost estimates improvements to road access to A127 and A128 before development in West Horndon is permitted.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10536
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mrs Valerie Wells
We need to focus on areas where there is sufficient existing infrastructure i.e. A12 corridor 7 A127 including Dunton.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10540
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Helen Kingsford
Yes. Building homes on the A12 and A127 corridor seems more appropriate BUT residents who live within the corridors are concerned about heavier traffic, overloaded doctor surgeries, and lack of hospital beds and school places. If traffic on A127 is crawling today what will it be like with vehicles and pedestrians. The backlash is traffic filtering through back roads, B roads and passing more frequently along quiet lanes.
**Blindly picking over Greenbelt is not the answer to the above issues. It is just a cop-out from meeting the cost of infrastructure elsewhere..
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10563
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Christine Hamilton
Yes. The proposed area is countryside. This will change the whole feel of the surrounding village.
Q1: No. I strongly disagree with these proposals. There hasn't been sufficient information given.
Q2: No. Housing is needed but not at this volume.
Q3: Yes. The proposed area is countryside. This will change the whole feel of the surrounding village.
Q4: No information has been provided. We only found out about the proposal via Facebook.
Q5: No.
Q6: Develop the brownfield sites. There are plenty.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3
Q12: There is one main road, a single carriageway.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10586
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Lee Ashley
Yes. Brownfield sites only.
Q1: No. I object to building on Green Belt.
Q2: No.
Q3: Yes. Brownfield sites only.
Q4: There is no capacity for growth on the A127.
Q5: Yes. Only on brownfield sites.
Q6: Most of the housing will not be for local need.
Q7: No. We have enough empty shops and business premises that will enable employment opportunities.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: Yes.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: Yes. Already close to capacity.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10607
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Catherine Ashley
Yes. Brownfield sites only.
Q1: No. I object to building on Green Belt.
Q2: No.
Q3: Yes. Brownfield sites only.
Q4: There is no capacity for growth on the A127.
Q5: Yes. Only on brownfield sites.
Q6: Most of the housing will not be for local need.
Q7: No. We have enough empty shops and business premises that will enable employment opportunities.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: Yes.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Q12: Yes. Already close to capacity.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10643
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mrs Alison Ratcliffe
Blackmore village is not an appropriate site.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10649
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Ruth Dimond
For existing villages, sites should not be considered unless there is a clear local need. For Blackmore village, there was strong local opposition to a recent proposal for development. Political targets should not be the main consideration.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10682
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Wendy Prout
The use of greenfield sites in Doddinghurst are unacceptable.
Comment form and letter submitted, see attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10758
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Gary Middlehurst
Brownfield sites are an obvious solution to remove the need to impact Greenbelt land, but, this is again limited within the proposed growth areas. The opportunity to release arable land should be considered where aceptable and appropriate. Town Centre dwellings in terms of intelligent hi-rise developments to encourage high street growth should be a strategic consideration to put Brentwood on the map. A Canary Wharf style development in Brentwood, Ingrave, West Horndon or Basildon to maximise vertical occupation rather than horizontal space should be a consideration when working within a Carbon based economy and seeking long term sustainable growth management.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10788
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Peter Saunders
Building of homes and industrial units on known water drainage areas and flood zones should be avoided at all costs.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10797
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mrs Ella Bradley
Blackmore village does not have the ability to cope with further development. IE the school has a waiting list already. The roads are inadequate.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10815
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mrs Maureen Slimm
Blackmore is not an appropriate site.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10857
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Jane Kelly
The west of Brentwood seem to be getting a raw deal, with large areas pinpointed for areas surrounding Ingrave, Herongate and Hutton. Given there is also a proposal for a huge number of houses at West Horndon and Dunton Garden Suburb. The infrastructure is not appropriate to cope. There is the A128 which is very busy at the moment, so the extra traffic generated would add to the volume of traffic already travelling through the villages.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10877
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Ms Claire Manning
Brownfield sites should always be used over Green Belt. West Horndon is a small village and we wish it to stay this way. Therefore preference for site 200 over everything else.
Q1: Yes.
Q2: No - A127 is already over capacity and residential properties run right up to it. A12 should be given greater consideration. No consideration has been given to the flood risk around A127.
Q3: Yes - Brownfield sites should always be used over Green Belt. West Horndon is a small village and we wish it to stay this way. Therefore preference for site 200 over everything else.
Q4: Site 200 - albeit not enough consideration has been given to A12 corridor and this should be re-addressed.
Q5: Yes.
Q6: Brownfield without question!
Q7: Yes - But consideration also needs to be given to public transport accessibility.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: Yes.
Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5
Other - Community: 5
Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 2
Q12: Yes - Local infrastructure such as public transport, local schools, health care etc. Roads currently inadequate at rush hour (A127 and A12) and this will get worse.
Q13: Roads, healthcare, education. We currently don't even have street lights that work.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10888
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Patricia Ramsay
Planning 50 houses with a play area is flawed. [Doddinghurst]. Most residents are elderly. 50 houses would have an enormous impact on the area. We do not have transport links, these are quiet roads which would be totally destroyed. There are only 5 places available in the village school. The GP surgery already has 8000 patients and covers surrounding villages.
The Parish Council have their own neighbourhood plan which they are working on with the government. Their survey proves there is no need for affordable housing. There are no jobs. We do not have sewerage, or utilities for extra housing. This is Green Belt land. There are other brownfield sites that are close to transport links that can be used instead of trying to build on every piece of Green Belt land. We moved to this road because round the corner is the country.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10896
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr James Oliver
As per above, I do not believe we should be building on greenbelt land and taking away the countryside and replacing with mass housing.
We live in Hutton, for the very reason in that it offers a small community whilst living in an open and green area. It is therefore completely inappropriate that this will be taken away, and we will be living in an overcrowded district.
see attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10900
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr John Caton
I agree that the development of any existing village housing is to be in small packages (no more than 10).
Q1: Yes - It seems very comprehensive.
Q2: Yes.
Q3: Yes - I think the Dunton Village is appropriate together with planned development shown on pages 192 to 197. I agree that the development of any existing village housing is to be in small packages (no more than 10).
Q4: Dunton Village.
Q5: Yes.
Q6: No I don't think its appropriate in anything other than small packages (no more than 10). In Blackmore any development as proposed by 2 applicants for anything up to 90 + 60 residents is ridiculously excessive.
Q7: Yes.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: No.
Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 3
Other - Historic Church, St Lawrence, Blackmore: 4
Q11:
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 4
Other - Blackmore school and village hall complex: 4
Q12: I strongly believe that owners of unoccupied residents should be heavily penalized, and if when left empty for a long time (? 12 months) without occupation they should be compulsory purchased. If this were done it would go well toward the housing needs up to 2030. Make selfish house owners pay!! Or let or sell their property.
Q13: See above.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10922
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Tytherleigh
No new development.
Q1: No - It is already too big.
Q2: Do not increase the size of Brentwood.
Q3: No new development.
Q4: None.
Q5: Certainly not.
Q6: No.
Q7: No.
Q8: No.
Q9: No change needed.
Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5
Q11: How can these aspects be occasional and frequent?
Q12: Leave things as they are.
Q13: Save our money.
Other comments: Reduce English population back to 49 million people.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10954
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Joseph Curtis
Yes. Use brownfield sites.
Q1: Yes.
Q2: No. Road and infrastructure issues. The A127 is a bottleneck already.
Q3: Yes. Use brownfield sites.
Q4: Site 200 [entire land east of A128, south of A127]
Q5: Yes.
Q6: Brownfield sites should always be considered firstly.
Q7: Yes. But control the sites with villagers input.
Q8: Yes, but with control and input from village representatives.
Q9: Yes. Improve the park facilities for the next generation.
Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - Outlook and Views: 5
Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 1
Q12: Yes. You should really consider what the next/younger generation want.
Q13: Be open and fully transparent in all your undertakings and be diplomatic.