The owner of the above-mentioned site recently discussed with you the possibility of having her property taken into consideration as a residential development site under the Strategic Growth Options exercise for the emerging Local Development Plan. She tells me that to do so you require some basic details about the site and has asked me to provide them for you. Please find attached site plan and an aerial overview of the site. Apologies for the slightly crude quality. If you require any other information please do not hesitate to ask for it.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: Do not build on green land.

Q2: No. Please let small villages remain part of English heritage and not overpopulate them.

Q3: Yes, leave the Green Belt alone. Do not build on Green Belt.

Q4: I think this has already happened near Dunton Ford's. Another large town has been created but where are the schools and why have the roads not been addressed already to deal with the extra population?

Q5: No. I don't want to live in a London Borough. I like that we are a small town and have a community feel.

Q6: No.

Q7: No.

Q8: Retail is a key part of our community. Not big supermarkets and department stores.

Q9: Yes.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 3
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: Yes. The new port at Tilbury and the impact our village will have if the M25 and A130 fails to work. A128 will be used as a cut through to bypass the roads. Pollution and safety has not been addressed.

Q13: Ensuring our roads are safe and well maintained including pavements.

Q1: No. This is mainly Green Belt plus fields. Please let there be some open spaces in Brentwood.

Q2: No. The infrastructure and facilities and local services are already stretched to the max.

Q3: No.

Q4: None. Find somewhere else.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Do not touch Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: No.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Being a village which are slowly being lost in England: 5

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 4
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: No.

Q13: Making existing roads more roadworthy. Dealing with speed limits, especially on A128 which can be very dangerous. More buses and school buses to encourage more use.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: No. I think the government need to look at unused inner city buildings, derelict land and so forth. Keep our Green Belt identify, protect our heritage and not overbuild.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes. Keep our villages especially Blackmore as it is. We haven't the resources and the roads would become dangerous, congested and like a town.

Q4: Not sure.

Q5: No.

Q6: Is this a question or a statement? I do not agree with using Green Belt at all. I strongly believe that Brentwood or elsewhere could be developed more.

Q7: No.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: As in what provision? Don't know.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Green Belts saved re Woollard Way - my road and my children's view and safety: 5

Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Other - Space and Tranquillity, English Heritage: 4

Q12: Quality of life, enjoying greenery of a natural environment. Safety for our children to grow up more free, not a built up area - this is why we moved to Blackmore, Woollard Way.

Q13: Don't know.


These questions are very biased and vague.

I do not want Woollard Way - the brownfield area of Green Belt to be developed / built on. This will devastate us. We moved here for the greenery and views. This will devalue our homes, effect our children's freedom and security. A close made into a noisy road would be categorically wrong and devastating. All the children love watching the horses, wildlife in the field next to use, they play out with no through traffic.

See attached.

See attached

See attached

See attached.

See attached.

RESPONSE MADE VIA OBJECTIVE CONSULTATION PORTAL TO DUNTON GARDEN SUBURB CONSULTATION

With regard to the recent above subject proposals,I am writing to object to the building of any developments on green belt land.

The Dunton Garden Suburb is part of green belt land is therefore subject to the policy of preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

The proposed areas within Herongate and Ingrave are completely against green belt policy,which states the retention of attractive landscapes and enhancement of landscapes near to where people live,and securing conservation interests.

RESPONSE MADE VIA OBJECTIVE CONSULTATION PORTAL TO DUNTON GARDEN SUBURB CONSULTATION

I would like to register my oppostion to all the proposed developments in the green belt around Brentwood. This includes the Dunton Garden Suburb and all other proposals for development around Brentwood, Ingrave and Herongate.

My objections are as follows:

The Green Belt was put in place 'in perpituity' to defend the environment against urban sprawl.

The developments around Ingrave and Herongate, where I live, would fundamentally change the nature of the environment for existing residents, many of whom moved to the area believing that they were moving to a village environment protected in perpetuity by the Green Belt act.

The developments would put an intolerable strain on local services. The A128 road is already severly overloaded at peak times. Further traffic moving to the local schools or to the stations would bring these roads to a halt at peak times.
Schools , Doctors surgeries in the area are already severely overloaded. It would fall on local residents to put up with the extra delays and fund any improvements.
Any compromise to the protection of the Green Belt in perpetuity in its entirety would inevitable lead to further demands for use of any residual Green belt at a future time.

Any development of the Green Belt in Ingrave and Herongate would end the historic position of the two historic villages by joining them together and turning them into a suburb of London.

Brentwood is an ancient wooded area and provides a natural habitat for wildlife. This would be severely impacted by large scale developments.

RESPONSE MADE VIA OBJECTIVE CONSULTATION PORTAL TO DUNTON GARDEN SUBURB CONSULTATION

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON DUNTON GARDEN SUBURB STUDY

Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council supports the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework for the protection of the Green Belt to prevent urban creep. We strongly oppose inappropriate development in the green belt except in very exceptional circumstances where the benefits clearly outweigh the harm and we also support the view that housing need alone does not constitute exceptional benefit

However, we acknowledge the challenge that the Strategic Housing Allocation numbers present to Brentwood Borough Council. We recognise that without clear locations for the necessary houses identified by the Strategic Housing Allocation, Brentwood Borough Council will be highly unlikely to have a robust Local Development Plan approved. That presents the risk of aggressive speculative developers attempting to obtain planning approval anywhere in the borough and that the appeals system could result in inappropriate and poorly coordinated development taking place.

Thus in the unfortunate circumstance where Green Belt does have to be sacrificed in order to meet the statutory obligations of the Strategic Housing Allocation, it is essential that only the minimum amount of land is sacrificed and that this is done in locations and in such a way that harm and urban creep is kept to an absolute minimum.

The Parish would be seeking an assurance that, in arriving at a robust Local Development Plan, the Green Belt around the villages of Herongate and Ingrave, will be confirmed and protected in the long term, to prevent coalescence with surrounding residential areas.

Whilst we readily understand that the current examination by Brentwood Borough Council is an early study, this Council feels the need to identify and highlight the issues that we can foresee will require more thorough examination and subsequent consultation before progress can be safely made.

The Objectively Assessed Housing Needs study is of fundamental importance to this process. Unfortunately there appear to be several flaws in the published description of the study that suggest that the degree of reliance on the present study may well be misplaced.

The various component data sources have very different degrees of currency
In one case the evaluation trend period is both too short and completely atypical
Where individual approaches produce a range, the highest figure has been chosen
The local housing need is the only item having proven relevance and accuracy
The derived housing need is potentially, at a minimum, double, at worst up to six times the actual level.

If the issue of need is put on one side, infrastructure, community requirements, effects on the environment and ecology would be the most significant areas for careful planning.

Highways: The local main roads (A128, A127) have a very major effect on the life of the residents in Herongate and Ingrave. At present the A128 is very heavily loaded during peak hours. Any holdups on the M25 or the A414 have the effect of compounding these problems. A population increase of some 20,000 in the southern parts of the Borough dependent on the A128 for north/south travel would cause gridlock daily. Utilisation of small greenbelt sites within the villages for development, with associated junctions with the A128, could only exacerbate the problem.

Transportation: C2C have announced that they have no plans to build a new station to service any new housing in Dunton. West Horndonstation car park barely copes with present needs. Cross Rail will therefore attract even more vehicular traffic through our Parish. Public transport improvements, desperately needed currently, would be vital as soon as building begins if a dependence on motor vehicles is not to build.

Education: Secondary education would apparently be dependent on existing schools. This would typically mean yet more, peak time, loading on the A128. However it would, in addition, require much development work on the existing secondary schools which are heavily loaded. Primary schools would need to be built in anticipation of the population of the Suburb; there is very little spare capacity in local Primary schools.

Infrastructure: Energy, water, sewerage and communications all fall outside the normal planning process (the Utilities are supposed to fix this) so always run decades behind the real needs of the community. There must be a better way.
Community Infrastructure: General Practice and Hospital facilities are extremely stretched at present. Health centres might be planned for and finance achieved but it seems highly unlikely that the NHS would be able to respond with hospital coverage, for such major growth in local population, in realistic time scales. Home care facilities are extremely scarce today in this area; how much worse it would be if 6000 more homes were built. More general facilities, such as community halls, entertainment, shops, etc. are also vital to the development of a real community.

Environment: Green spaces for both humans and wildlife are essential elements in building a good place to live. Without a thorough consideration of the needs and welfare of both parties in the equation, and appropriate provision for both, it will not be possible to achieve the desired result.

Sustainability: It is a demonstrable fact that major projects such as this rarely generate the funding that a viable community needs. It is even rarer for the vital facilities for sustainability to be provided in a timely manner. The longer the delay in provision, the less sustainable the community will be. For example, the fewer the public transport facilities the greater the dependence on the car; once the habit is ingrained too late provision of public transport will fail. Only thorough planning, strong contracts with developers and proper consultation between interested parties can produce a satisfactory and sustainable project.

Q1: This entire exercise is pathetic when shipyards, coalmines and factories were closed down there was a need for an excercise such as this in those locations.

Q2: See my husbands answers.
2 yes by all means consider the issues, providing that the answer in Q1 is considered.
3 One who is opposed to the envisaged growth there seems to be little point in commenting on an y individual site.
5, No - the previous answers deal with this.
6 No, no, no.
7. No - Turn the disused office blocks into factories.
10
Scenic Beauty/Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

11
Nature Reserves/Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/Derelict/Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure/Recreation Facilities: 2

8 Yes - But no more supermarkets.
9 Yes - Instead of farmland being sold to developers, use ot for leisure.

4 None. The A127 is developing into a built up corridor from London to Southend.
12 No - This whole programme should have been rejected. We have an MP who is a member of the government, what is his part in this?
13 The previous answers deal with this.
1.14 Consultations. For a consultation process this must be seen as a disgrace.While there has been talk of growth - only today (16/02/2015) have we seen consultation documents. It has to be asked just who has been consulted.