I wish to note my objection to Brentwood Council's Strategic Growth Options Consultation for a number of reasons. Firstly I do not wish to see the surrounding green belt area destroyed which is one of the reason we moved to the village. In addition, it would most certainly increase congestion in the area which is bad enough as it is. I am also concerned about the effect of the future value of my property in Ingrave as I feel I paid a premium for my property in Whitby Avenue because of the self-contained village feel, which is sure to be lost if this development goes ahead. Finally, the school situation in Ingrave and indeed brentwood is difficult enough to without adding to this stress for parents by building more houses in the area and adding to the pressure for places.


For here reasons it would be an absolute travesty if this building work went ahead our lively greenbelt. Green areas are scarce enough in this corner of the uk and we at lucky enough to live in one. Why would we want to change that. I feel it would only be to the detriment of the local area not to mention Ingrave and Hutton.

I would like to object to the above SGO development plan. I live in Herongate village with my parents. I am 14 years old and attended the local primary school in the village. The school has too many pupils in it as it so I can't understand why you would allow even more pupils to attend an already oversubscribed school. The future schooling of local children in the village is going to suffer if these plans come into place. I also ride a bike and do a paperound in the village and feel that the a128 is a very dangerous road. I catch the school bus from the village to St martins school and I have witnessed some of my friends have accidents whilst getting on and off the school bus on the a128, the road is extremely dangerous and if you allow more housing developments in the area will only make things worse.

The greenbelt land in question is also a natural habitat for many wildlife species, me and my friends should be allowed to enjoy this for many years to come.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I would like to voice strong concern with you plans to build housing and other forms of all development around Ingrave, Herongate and Hutton.

I live in Ingrave, we moved here after renting in Herongate for a while. We fell in love with a beautiful and special place, one that gave us village life within react of the M25 and London. this was a dream come true, we have Thorndon Park, which is absolutely wonderful park and fields at the end of our road. I feel safe when I run in the park and I love that know all the names of my neighbours and we look out for each other. I never thought places like this existed.

I grew up in Hackney, when it wasn't trendy, there were murders on my road, fights on our estate and our house was burgled and they tried to set it alight! We ever had people focus themselves in our house when we were in. We weren't allowed to play outside and my parents were forever worrying about me and my sisters. We soon moved to Walthamstow it was a little safer, however I was attacked coming home when I was only 15 and still suffered crimes.

I worked really hard to have my dream home, which I brought with my other half last year and plan to never to leave, we want to have a family and plan to build our life here. I wouldnt want my children to have to deal with what I had to. I now have a choice where I live and what my surroundings are and it would be awful if it was to change.

Please do not develop my area, it is my home & my future.

Also please also take into consideration that mostly older people live in this area and they will not be able to email any objections so more awareness should be implemented to make sure they are fully aware and also have their say.

I object to the above plan as this is not for local need and is contrary to the NPPF para 14. Congestion is also a major factor to surrounding areas. The many empty properties in the UK should be utilised. Green belt should remain GREEN.

see attached

see attached

I object to the above plan as this is not for local need and is contrary to the NPPF para 14. Congestion is also a major factor to surrounding areas. The many empty properties in the UK should be utilised. Green belt should remain GREEN.

As a young person growing up in Ingrave I object to these plans as it is extremely bad for the environment. There will be less green spaces in the future and it will impact on the local wildlife. If we begin to build on greenbelt land now, which is supposed to be protected, where will it stop? I also object to the above plan as this is not for local need and is contrary to the NPPF para 14. Congestion is also a major factor to surrounding areas and once again this has a major impact on the local environment. Green belt should remain GREEN.

We are opposed to the proposal to decimate the green belt under the proposed re designation of green belt land in Brentwood in particular the beautiful farmland and woodland which is around Hutton . We intend to use our votes in forthcoming elections to express my disagreement with these proposals

I am absolutely appalled to here about the Brentwood housing options being considered in the local area. We must not build upon our Green Belt land, and we must maintain our beautiful countryside, ancient woodlands, wonderful views and bluebells.

I am absolutely appalled to here about the Brentwood housing options being considered in the local area. We must not build upon our Green Belt land, and we must maintain our beautiful countryside, ancient woodlands, wonderful views and bluebells.

See attached.

Email: Please note I am not in favour of any development in West Horndon Village.

See attached.

Email: Please note I am not in favour of any development in West Horndon Village.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I would like it be noted that I categorically object to Brentwood Councils "Strategic Growth Options". The suggested options are grossly excessive.

The fundamental aim of green belt area is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

Perhaps a reminder of this is necessary:-

Green Belt serves five purposes:

to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Under these proposed options the villages of Ingrave and Herongate would simply merge and be swallowed up by Brentwood.

The negative impact on the infrastructure would be detrimental to the characteristics of both of these villages. The main through roads have already become heavily congested at peak times of the day, pushing traffic onto country lanes which are ill maintained and evidentially unable to cope with the increased volume of traffic.

The council must not allow themselves not be coerced or financially incentivised into achieving unreasonable "housing crisis" targets set by the government. I hope the council will act justly on behalf of its constituents.

In addition to my specific concerns raised within the strategy document on the council's portal I would like to address the matter personally.

Urbanising the area within Brentwood, Ingrave, Herongate and Hutton would be to the detriment of the character and value of the area.

I strongly object to the proposal. I chose to buy in Ingrave because of the Green Land, Natural habitat and village environment of the area and building many homes would ruin the area.

There are many areas that have greater potential for development not only within Essex but nationally and these areas should be optimised before destroying yet more of our countryside and nature habitats.

There will come a time when we need a high speed rail connection to just get out of the urban environment if urbanisation isn't distributed throughout the country not just in the South East.

I am writing to you with regard to your strategic growth options consultation.
As you can see I live in Harold Park which borders Brentwood and I do all my shopping etc in the Brentwood area and spend a good deal of time there. I very much enjoy travelling to Brentwood usually on public transport, and seeing the countryside and areas of green belt which surrounds both Harold Park and Brentwood. This is one of Brentwood's greatest assets, it is what draws people to live here and makes it a pleasant place to live. As such I was extremely upset to think that you would consider building on the green belt. Even this week the Standard newspaper quoted Thurrock and Epping Forest as the two top places that people wish to live in and gave the reason as "because it is surrounded by green belt land" (See Evening Standard Tuesday 3 February 2015, page 13). I believe this emphasises how important green belt land is and why it should not be built upon.

I list my reasons and comments below:
* Your document does not seem to have been approached on a sensible and even basis. Especially concerning the bias running through the document leading towards development to the south of the Borough. For example, the obvious and severe traffic existing problems on the A127 are not stated in the discussion, with development being seen as a possible solution to an inferred need, (3.12) whereas such growth in the A12 corridor 'could have similar negative impacts on infrastructure and services' (3.13) and in the even more so in (2.10) where development in the Brentwood urban area and north of the Borough creates problems whereas in the A127 corridor and West Horndon development "creates opportunities" according to your document.

* For the reason states above the consultation is not objective in terms of presentation and environmental and financial cost.

Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No for the following reasons:

It is arguable whether the Borough needs subdividing at all for growth purposes.
In the absence of evidence relating to transport it is far from certain that this is the key matter to base decisions upon.

Even in the most rural parts of the Borough transport is not particularly poor compared with many parts of Essex let alone the country.

The subdivision is based ostensibly on transport but the north / middle / south land subdivisions is just too coarse a reflection of transport availability, this being predominantly linear in nature.

Even accepting transport led subdivisions in principle, this quickly needs to be refined by considering the questions of available capacity and financial and environmental cost to upgrade to accommodate growth. Without these considerations the basis of the study is unsupported.

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?

Partially although the brief analysis 2.14 - 2.19 should be consistent. 2.19 is particularly biased whereby it makes an unsupported link between the character and availability of land for growth being potentially greater (surely this is the ultimate conclusion of considering all aspects of land use) and that the A127 has more scope for improvements than the A12 (and I would add, the A128, B roads and local road network).

To reiterate the point under Q1 if transport really is the key issue then a link is required between problems and solutions before judgements can be suggested.
Issues for the three areas should also concentrate on environmental impacts of the various options.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?
I believe it is totally inappropriate to use Green Belt land for such purposes. I agree with the aim to maximise the use of brownfield areas both within urban and rural localities.

Even taking this into account should additional sites be required these should generally be of an infill nature or otherwise to create compact communities. This should apply to both urban and rural areas in order to create built up areas that minimise impact on landscape and facilitate the creation of a focus. The extent to which this principle should be applied would be based on minimising impact vs growth.

In terms of the sites illustrated:

3.12 - The completely new town 'Dunton Garden Suburb' would in my view have disproportionate impacts on the Green Belt in addition to creating a new urban centre which I feel would be detrimental to Brentwood Town centre and the road network. In addition the growth suggested for West Horndon is clearly disproportionate to the suggested aims above. Some smaller growth to West Horndon though could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

3.13 - In general both these option should be pursued within the aims I mention above. I would oppose the large scale areas shown south east of Hutton as per my comments on the 'Dunton Garden Suburb'. Further linear expansion at Brook Street termed 'Development options at M25' are also highly detrimental to the Green Belt by eroding this already narrow strip between Brentwood and the edge of the Green Belt in Havering, and that at Coombe Woods, Bereden Lane would be a planning travesty. Some smaller growth opportunities to Pilgrims Hatch, Shenfield and Honeypot Lane would perhaps have the least affect on the Green Belt and be close enough to existing built up areas to keep the built up area as compact as possible and focus activity towards existing urban centres. Small extensions to Mountnessing and Ingatestone that are within the confines of the existing road / rail corridor could also be considered.

The idea of an additional junction with the A12 to intercept the A128 is so obvious that I'm surprised that this wasn't incorporated back in the 1960s. It is this sort of link to the interrelationship between growth and transport that I was referring above although in this case it would have a significant added benefit to the community rather than just accommodating additional pressure created by growth.

3.14 - Isolated sites should not in general be considered for housing development such as Clapgate Estate and Thoby Priory. Some smaller growth to each of the main communities shown on the plan (except Navestock) could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

This is a strange leading statement as the assumption regarding greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor remains undemonstrated. On the face of it the same phrase could be used to open a question about any other part of the Borough. For example, if necessary local road improvements could be considered for the area of the 'five villages' in the northern subdivision.

As discussed above in relation to the A127 Corridor limited growth at West Horndon is the only reasonable option for this sub area.

Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites in the edge of urban area?

I assume that this is referring to Green Belt land and therefore my answer is no.

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within Green Belt)?

It is in general much more preferable for brownfield sites to be developed over greenfield sites however the impacts and implications of this do need to be taken into consideration. In some cases brownfield sites are best left in employment use and / or are not in a town or village context and in such cases creation of new housing in the countryside should be avoided.

Q7: To enable future employment need to be met do you agree that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway Network?

I think the link between employment use and the strategic highway network is likely to be sweeping and in cases the opposite is true.

I also believe that we should be looking at sustainable transport such as the railways and not adding to road traffic and pollution.

I would say that future employment need should be met by considering the full range of planning matters including impacts on the landscape and the green environment.

Q8: In order to ensure that the Town Centre remains economically sustainable, do you agree that a "Town Centre First" approach should be taken to retail development?

Definitely. Retail lends itself well to densification of existing land use and I do not feel that release of any green belt land should be necessary to accommodate such growth.

Q9: Are there opportunities for more open space provision in the area where you live?

Not so much provision of open space as the need for better recreational linkages between open spaces.

It would be helpful if the Council were more proactive in terms of the environment and, for example, provided public transport to the parks such as South Weald and Thorndon, or at least provide free parking for the first 2 hours. It is important to replace trees on the edge of roads etc to keep Brentwood feeling rural and not urban. To this end it is important to avoid advertising creep on business premises. I think it is important to not have neon signs for e.g. the Holiday Inn and other businesses. It is important not to allow planning creep, a poor example of this and one which the Council could have prevented is the large Sainsbury store which when it was first built was built away from the main road in quite a laid back position with trees and landscaping. Not long after it was allowed to build the monstrous car park which as well as being an eye sore has meant those arriving on foot have to walk much further to get to the entrance.
The A127 represents a severe block to north - south recreational routes. Effectively there is no sympathetic crossing for the 6.5km from Great Warley Road to Dunton outside of the Borough. This is very regrettable matter as it limits the value of Thorndon Park to residents of West Horndon and any recreational users coming from the south to the Park.

Q10: Please rate the level to which you value the landscape near where you live. (see page 29)

In Harold Park and living very near to the borders of Brentwood the following areas are very important to me.

Being able to see the countryside and not feeling like I live in a town, being able to see wildlife, the need for woods and trees to provide oxygen, to counteract pollution and to act as a sound barrier to prevent noise from the road and the railway. I would therefore rank the following as of equal importance.

Scenic Beauty / Outdoor Recreation / Wildlife interest / Historical interest / Tranquillity

Other - a key aspect omitted is views. As mentioned in my first paragraph it is very important to me to be able to see green fields, deer roaming, etc and I think that Brentwood Council should be doing more to prevent the urbanisation of the area. For example limit the advertising signage and changes which are more in link with an urban area than a semi rural one.

Q11: To what extent do you think the following is present in the landscape near where you live?

Houses - all the houses are in tree lined roads and surrounded by gardens and the estates are green with fields all around.

Commercial buildings - there are very few apart from a small number of local retail.

Nature Reserves - I can get to Thames Chase / South Weald / Thorndon Park in a matter of minutes.

Farmland - several farms although Oak Farm has never been seen as a proper farm.

Woodland - Many woods which act as a sound barrier, provide oxygen and look pleasant

Wasteland - none

Infrastructure - A12, A127, M25 nearby but not so near as to disturb the peace, railway nearby Leisure Facilities - sufficient, especially as I enjoy walking and cycling and there is a cycle path and several areas to walk in without needing a car.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

I do not believe that green belt should be built on at all. Instead the borough should be not allowing the building of large accommodation, for example most recent estates are for 3 or 4 bedroom detached houses where there is clearly a need for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom houses to meet the need especially factoring in the change in families, more single people etc.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

This requires a study in itself and I note that this is being looked into (6.3). As stated throughout this response though I feel that Strategic Growth options need to come out of the conclusions from the infrastructure study (and studies into other such high level matters) rather than being in a response to a more arbitrarily suggested steer.

As discussed above I believe there are many opportunities for the council to be more pro-active in terms of infrastructure and caring about the environment and restoring and maintaining a sense of community. For example, including sustainable transport in any plans concerning infrastructure, for example, sensible and safe cycle lanes which don't encroach on the pavement. Free parking and transport to local parks. Maintenance of footpaths and public bridleways to encourage people to make use of the fields around. Support for local shops and local post offices. Encouragement for people to shop locally, for shops to sell local produce. Subsidies for milkmen, paper deliveries etc so that the elderly and vulnerable are included in any plans. Creating a community whereby the elderly and vulnerable are not isolated, for example encouraging businesses, banks and libraries to use people and not replace people with systems, e.g. banks in Brentwood high street, Brentwood library etc. This also has the added benefit of creating employment.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding the above in due course.

I object to the above plan as this is not for local need and is contrary to the NPPF para 14. Congestion is also a major factor to surrounding areas. The many empty properties in the UK should be utilised. Green belt should remain GREEN.

I strongly object to any proposals to build on todays greenbelt.

The current population of Brentwood requires nothing like the amount of housing proposed. These proposals are fuelled by greed of Conservative Party supporting landowners and developers that would cost Brentwood residents dearly in terms of horrendous congestion, pollution, overcrowding, public services beyond breaking point and an ugly urban environment.

Protect all of todays greenbelt. Dont destroy our food supply

I received a flyer the other day entitled "Save our Green Belt" which says that vast areas of open countryside between Hutton and Ingrave are being considered as options for future housing.

I wasn't aware that a housing development was being considered for this area until this flyer arrived at the weekend so unfortunately don't have the Council's reference

I would however like to register my objection to any large scale building on this green belt land.

My main objection is that any large development would destroy a beautiful area of countryside. When I first moved to my house in Lilian Crescent, it was the views over the back across to Ingrave that swung my decision to move here and because it is green belt land I thought that it was protected land.

The semi rural nature of this area is what I think, makes it such a lovely place to live

I don't think that a large development is right for this particular area. For one thing the roads are already badly congested at certain times of the day and a large development would only make things worse as I assume that if this went ahead the extra residents would have to use the amenities in Brentwood adding to the traffic congestion.

I don't believe that we have the necessary infrastructure to support anything large scale.

Please do not build on our greenbelt as it grows food and there are plenty of empty homes for mainly foreign people to live in in other parts of our country

The roads are getting more and more busy and it will be terrible, living in Brentwood, if more time is wasted travelling on them as well as the increased pollution.

There are plenty of old factory sites for building homes for people living in Brentwood. We should not have to house everyone in England and the world so greedy landowners and developers can make money.

You cannot improve Brentwood, as it is already a wonderful place to live

I object to building on any of todays greenbelt as proposed in your Strategic Growth Options document

see attached

I am writing to object to the strategic growth options consultation for Brentwood, the sheer magnitude of the potential development for our lovely area is very concerning. I live in the village of Ingrave and it appears that we are now constatntly fighting a lone crusade to protect the green belt areas we have around us i.e. Hillcrest Nursery & Dunton Village etc.



These applications keep popping up and to potentially develop 4000-6000 homes in the Brentwood area is astounding, we already suffer with terrible traffic & congestion issues i.e. A127,A128 & A12 etc plus local schools are totally over subscribed so how on earth would this work?.



How would the area be able to cope with this level of development?, one of the reasons I moved to the Brentwood area 18 years ago was its beauty plus the excellent schooling which would all now be under threat. I am not opposed to expansion and I am sure there are some areas where this would be suitable particulalry with the future introduction of Crossrail, however the villages of Ingrave & Herongate where I live have wonderful countryside around it and makes it a fantastic place to live and for my children to grow up. Destroying this with thousands of new homes & traffic polution would be very sad, I for one would seriously considering moving away from the area if this happened and I am sure many other locals would also.

See attached.

There are other considerations to be taken into account in this 'consultation', besides the destruction of yet more of our Green Belt.
The south-east is already overcrowded; many more school places would be needed; Doctors - those we have cant cope with the increasing numbers especially as people grow older; yet more cars on our roads; transport, parking which is an awful problem everywhere and the NHS is buckling under the strain
While we know people need homes - and jobs - maybe our Politicians should deal with the cause of this overcrowding and put a stop to immigration.
We cannot go on allowing more and more people into this country but sadly our Prime Minister hasn't the courage to stand up to the EU.
I feel that no matter how many people vote against the suggestions the proposals will come about as did Cross Rail