I wish to register our objection to building in Herongate & Ingrave on greenbelt.

As set out in Brentwood's 2005 Local Plan I wish for this to be retained.

Green belt is there to be enjoyed not to be developed on!!

The destruction of the natural habitat.

The infrastructure in our area will not be able to accommodate for these homes. Schools, Doctors, Dentists neither.

Transport C2C train service at West Horndon. Lucky to get a seat of a morning let alone a parking space!!

A128 is already heavly congested as it is.

I wish to register our objection to building in Herongate & Ingrave on greenbelt.

As set out in Brentwood's 2005 Local Plan I wish for this to be retained.

Green belt is there to be enjoyed not to be developed on!!

The destruction of the natural habitat.

The infrastructure in our area will not be able to accommodate for these homes. Schools, Doctors, Dentists neither.

Transport C2C train service at West Horndon. Lucky to get a seat of a morning let alone a parking space!!

A128 is already heavly congested as it is.

Dear sirs, The Herongate and Ingrave housing proposals are completely unrealistic because they are on Green Belt land. If we start building on green belt then effectively you are giving the go ahead for an unpresidented building sprall which will decimate what greenary we have left. Anyone who has grandchildren will understand the obligation we have to conserve what we have. Brown field sites must be used where available,restrict immigration and build northwards where the infrastructure can cope. To say we in the south are at bursting point is an understatement.

Dear sirs, The Herongate and Ingrave housing proposals are completely unrealistic because they are on Green Belt land. If we start building on green belt then effectively you are giving the go ahead for an unpresidented building sprall which will decimate what greenary we have left. Anyone who has grandchildren will understand the obligation we have to conserve what we have. Brown field sites must be used where available,restrict immigration and build northwards where the infrastructure can cope. To say we in the south are at bursting point is an understatement.

Dear sirs, The Herongate and Ingrave housing proposals are completely unrealistic because they are on Green Belt land. If we start building on green belt then effectively you are giving the go ahead for an unpresidented building sprall which will decimate what greenary we have left. Anyone who has grandchildren will understand the obligation we have to conserve what we have. Brown field sites must be used where available,restrict immigration and build northwards where the infrastructure can cope. To say we in the south are at bursting point is an understatement.

We wish to register our objection to the proposed building on Green Belt land as set out in Brentwood's 2005 Local Plan.

Green Belt land is Green Belt land for a reason, it is granted perpetually and not meant to be built on anywhere.

I am writing to complain about the fact that until I received a local newsletter from the above parish council I was unaware of the major development plan proposed for Brentwood. Please give my comments thought.

My understanding from the Gazette is that Brentwood BC have been unable to get information out to the residents due to "printing problems". It does not bode well for me to have any confidence in our local government elected officials if they are unable to effectively communicate to the electorate on such a fundamental and emotional subject like mass housing on green belt.

I have already posted my concerns regarding the Dunton Garden Project, but really must reject most vigorously the plans regarding the development proposed for "substantial green belt land" offered up between Billericay Road and Running Waters. It is plainly obvious that the only critical mass of land that offers any potential to build 3000+ houses on is the 600+ acres of farm land and green belt listed below.

Site ref 02C. Land east of Running Waters Brentwood. SHLASS Ref G 040. Size 349.7 acres.

Sire ref 192 Heron Hall, Herongate, Brentwood. SHLAA Ref G015. Size 235 acres.

As explained in my email regarding Dunton, I am not adverse to the fact that the borough requires housing and that developers require substantial plots to make the developments economical but I am seriously against such dense housing.

My objection to the development is based upon the following:-

NHS.

Presently it is obvious from many reports that both Basildon and Romford hospitals are simply unable to cope with the volume of patients especially A & E type emergencies. Our invaluable NHS is seriously at breaking point and to add 6000 homes in Dunton and another 5,500 in Brentwood this will only add further critical mass and exacerbate the problem.

Road Infrastructure.

Although the development plan may tweak the local road infrastructure as it allocated the development budget, we all know that the reality is that the current road infrastructure and maintenance is almost non existent especially on the more rural roads like immediately outside my home, where the surface and potholes are so poor that all traffic is criss crossing the road to avoid the damage (I have requested this to be reviewed as I will be making claims on the Borough as and when we have a fatal accident as I am confident we will). In addition under the proposal you plan housing on the farmland near my home, I hope that the water levels have been taken into account because rest assured the Billericay Road is prone to regular flooding with the surface water that runs off the farmland adjacent to the lane. The plans wax lyrical that the borough is local to the major roads M25 A12 A127, the issue is that the minor artery roads that feed the major road cannot cope today let alone with significant increased flows.

Law and Order

Having moved into my property 2 years ago my out buildings have been broken into several times, with the lack of police available today I no longer inform the police having been told that the event does not warrant a visit. What additional resources will the local force be given to ensure that law and order is maintained. In addition I read someone in the local authority in Billericay stated that Billericay would not be effected where does he think these new residents will shop, and be entertained. We all know that Brentwood is a no go high street unless you have been bused in with a fake tan, false white teeth that glow in the dark. Now I am all in favour of growth but increased people invariably lead to increased trouble especially if we are not successful in attracting the right people.

Rail Infrastructure

C2C provide an excellent service however with additional stations planned and possible an additional 11,000 homes between Dunton and Brentwood development not too mention Thurrock the increase in passengers will require a 12 carriage minimum train service per services. As a commuter for over 30 years I can assure you that a seat is a luxury.
In addition to increased traffic at railways, parking is in short supply and with the thieves who run NCP we need land subsidised or made available for more affordable parking at railway stations.

Environmental

I moved to xxxxxx just over two years ago. I moved from Corringham to Herongate because I was able to buy a little piece of Herongate history, with ancient blue bell woodland. I have no light pollution with a wonderful village of people and environment. Do I really want to be looking out onto hundreds of new homes which will hardly be designed to keep the charm of the current residences. I have fully refurbished the cottage at great expense and am now beginning work on my blue bell woods to restore it back to its former glory, should I now make that investment? If my local council are not prepared to give full and thorough consideration to the environment or its current tax paying residents I see little return in me doing the same in attempting to improve the woodland for future generations.

Conclusion

I am of course sympathetic to the need of additional houses but I urge our representatives to think carefully of housing under critical mass, where possible make every effort to meet the housing using brown field sites and protect our green belt at all cost, if we need to use green belt then where possible and with the thoughts of local residents be sympathetic when forging the plans. If houses are required in more rural parts of the borough then look to ensure that current residents are not overlooked or the space that they have worked hard to secure is not unduly encroached upon.

I am trusting our officials and representative to do the right thing, every decision needs to reflect the needs of the current people living in the borough balanced against the obvious demand for housing.

Dear Sir,
Re: 'Gents Farm' Hulletts Lane, Brentwood and 'Strategic Growth Option' Consultation Doc. 2015.

Please be advised that my email pays attention to the following Site Ref No's: 011a, 011b, 011c and 0176.

Further to the above Consultation, I would be grateful if you could Comment on the following Points which I believe are relevant and should be taken into account at the earliest opportunity.

I would also be grateful if you could confirm Receipt of this Letter, together with confirmation as to Timescales of the Consultation and how matters are likely to proceed, including but not limited to how I will be kept informed, alongside the Names and Contact Details of those Individuals/Officers whom will be dealing with this matter.

Flooding and Flood Risk

The land is at a low level and subject to much flooding, when suggested too much flooding, it would infer just that, in fact, due to the agricultural and wooded areas then, to build upon such wet-lands, then the water levels would rise considerably and seriously jeopardise the existing housing stock residing at this location.

This flooding would very seriously need much consideration, as, added would be a natural spring water spout at the area marked 0176 and again this particular area would be the subject of considerable costs to drain.

Currently with the grasslands and the tree (which each tree could clear 80 gallons of water per day) then the risk of flood is reduced.

Thus finally it can be clearly seen that the proposed build scheme would seriously jeopardise the current habitation at this location.

Access to this proposed development scheme would be a serious consideration for the Highways Engineers, as at first glance could be seen that an access point at Orchard Lane would involve some roadway widening and again, from Hulletts Lane and Ongar Road would involve not only financial but a traffic engineer headache, as existing would be currently a 'wet' bridal path.


The site itself contains an abundance of wildlife and is used by members of the public along the bridal path and adjacent fields.

There are local properties (including my own) which are of significant local interest, you will note that my property is a Grade II Listed Property and some of the areas which are contained within the Development Plan, were historically within the Boundaries of my property.

It should also be noted that there is significant local objection to this Plan and contained within the Plan, one such area has already failed Planning Applications previously.

Trusting these foregoing points would be taken into consideration

Dear Sir

We are writing in response to a letter from our Parish Council dated 4th February 2015 regarding proposed developments directly adjacent to our properties.

We wish to object to any additional development on GREEN BELT or BROWNFIELD areas surrounding Brook Lane, Peartree Close, Park Meadow and Lime Grove. The reason for our concerns are the infrastructure of our current village will not sustain this additional expansion. Our reasons for living in this village is to enjoy quiet village life and with the current transport system and road conditions ie serious potholes additional traffic will simply worsen the situation.

The information provided on your web site is not specifically clear as to where the proposed development is planned nor does this provide any detail as to the number of properties or property types that would be built. The information provided for web address being www.brentwood.gov.uk/localplan however the site is not easy to navigate and we are unsure as to where we should be sending our objection - hence this email.

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Dear Sir

We are writing in response to a letter from our Parish Council dated 4th February 2015 regarding proposed developments directly adjacent to our properties.

We wish to object to any additional development on GREEN BELT or BROWNFIELD areas surrounding Brook Lane, Peartree Close, Park Meadow and Lime Grove. The reason for our concerns are the infrastructure of our current village will not sustain this additional expansion. Our reasons for living in this village is to enjoy quiet village life and with the current transport system and road conditions ie serious potholes additional traffic will simply worsen the situation.

The information provided on your web site is not specifically clear as to where the proposed development is planned nor does this provide any detail as to the number of properties or property types that would be built. The information provided for web address being www.brentwood.gov.uk/localplan however the site is not easy to navigate and we are unsure as to where we should be sending our objection - hence this email.

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

I will list reasons for objections- there's quite a few so apologies for the length of this email!!

I can't list reference numbers as when going on to the link you sent the picture crashes and I can't see anything.

The areas of my objection are Ingrave and herongate.

But I would strongly oppose building/ developing in any areas of green belt land in any of the surrounding areas as the open countryside should be kept as it is for everyone to enjoy. However I don't think this reason will be enough so will continue to list my objections.

I was lucky enough to move to Ingrave 3 years ago and absolutely love the area and village life. I paid a considerable amount for my house and have since spent a lot of money building an extension overlooking beautiful countryside, Which is one of the areas marked to be developed.
I feel I paid a larger amount for my house as it is in a village location next to open countryside and I would not have spent in excess of £70,000 on an extension overlooking houses, roads etc.
We moved to a village to be part of a village community and have paid for this privilege, and places like this should be kept as they are. If every area with a field or open countryside let alone green belt land was built on and developed there would no areas like this left.
I understand the need for more housing but don't quite understand the need to make some of it affordable housing when this area is not an affordable area to buy a property and council tax is well over £200 per month. I imagine that the affordable housing would mean blocks of flats of however many floors which would absolutely ruin the look of these lovely villages. We have lovely old properties, cottages, farms etc and to build large areas of housing estates would take away it's beauty and turn into another town which would become over populated, overrun and not a very desirable place to live anymore.I don't know of any other areas to list as you requested but surely you can't keep on trying to build on our precious countryside.
There are however a row of derelict cottages next to a disused car showroom at the traffic lights by the artichoke pub which could be renovated and not have much effect on the surrounding areas. Maybe sites like this could be used, which have already been used previously. Or areas on "A"roads which would not affect or change village life.

The other reasons I object are as follows,

Local flooding- if there are more areas of hard standing/ roads etc there will be more localised flooding. The area is terrible for this as it is with gardens, paths and lanes around farms flooded after heavy rain.

Local roads- I walk my children to and from Ingrave school every day and Ingrave road is so busy with cars, lorries, buses etc it simply could not handle any more traffic. It is already overused with vehicles many of which are too busy to stop at the pedestrian crossings and with pavements much smaller than 1 metre in width in areas, I feel adding more traffic to this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over population of schools, roads.
Overworking police, hospitals, local authorities

I will list reasons for objections- there's quite a few so apologies for the length of this email!!

I can't list reference numbers as when going on to the link you sent the picture crashes and I can't see anything.

The areas of my objection are Ingrave and herongate.

But I would strongly oppose building/ developing in any areas of green belt land in any of the surrounding areas as the open countryside should be kept as it is for everyone to enjoy. However I don't think this reason will be enough so will continue to list my objections.

I was lucky enough to move to Ingrave 3 years ago and absolutely love the area and village life. I paid a considerable amount for my house and have since spent a lot of money building an extension overlooking beautiful countryside, Which is one of the areas marked to be developed.
I feel I paid a larger amount for my house as it is in a village location next to open countryside and I would not have spent in excess of £70,000 on an extension overlooking houses, roads etc.
We moved to a village to be part of a village community and have paid for this privilege, and places like this should be kept as they are. If every area with a field or open countryside let alone green belt land was built on and developed there would no areas like this left.
I understand the need for more housing but don't quite understand the need to make some of it affordable housing when this area is not an affordable area to buy a property and council tax is well over £200 per month. I imagine that the affordable housing would mean blocks of flats of however many floors which would absolutely ruin the look of these lovely villages. We have lovely old properties, cottages, farms etc and to build large areas of housing estates would take away it's beauty and turn into another town which would become over populated, overrun and not a very desirable place to live anymore.I don't know of any other areas to list as you requested but surely you can't keep on trying to build on our precious countryside.
There are however a row of derelict cottages next to a disused car showroom at the traffic lights by the artichoke pub which could be renovated and not have much effect on the surrounding areas. Maybe sites like this could be used, which have already been used previously. Or areas on "A"roads which would not affect or change village life.

The other reasons I object are as follows,

Local flooding- if there are more areas of hard standing/ roads etc there will be more localised flooding. The area is terrible for this as it is with gardens, paths and lanes around farms flooded after heavy rain.

Local roads- I walk my children to and from Ingrave school every day and Ingrave road is so busy with cars, lorries, buses etc it simply could not handle any more traffic. It is already overused with vehicles many of which are too busy to stop at the pedestrian crossings and with pavements much smaller than 1 metre in width in areas, I feel adding more traffic to this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over population of schools, roads.
Overworking police, hospitals, local authorities

I will list reasons for objections- there's quite a few so apologies for the length of this email!!

I can't list reference numbers as when going on to the link you sent the picture crashes and I can't see anything.

The areas of my objection are Ingrave and herongate.

But I would strongly oppose building/ developing in any areas of green belt land in any of the surrounding areas as the open countryside should be kept as it is for everyone to enjoy. However I don't think this reason will be enough so will continue to list my objections.

I was lucky enough to move to Ingrave 3 years ago and absolutely love the area and village life. I paid a considerable amount for my house and have since spent a lot of money building an extension overlooking beautiful countryside, Which is one of the areas marked to be developed.
I feel I paid a larger amount for my house as it is in a village location next to open countryside and I would not have spent in excess of £70,000 on an extension overlooking houses, roads etc.
We moved to a village to be part of a village community and have paid for this privilege, and places like this should be kept as they are. If every area with a field or open countryside let alone green belt land was built on and developed there would no areas like this left.
I understand the need for more housing but don't quite understand the need to make some of it affordable housing when this area is not an affordable area to buy a property and council tax is well over £200 per month. I imagine that the affordable housing would mean blocks of flats of however many floors which would absolutely ruin the look of these lovely villages. We have lovely old properties, cottages, farms etc and to build large areas of housing estates would take away it's beauty and turn into another town which would become over populated, overrun and not a very desirable place to live anymore.I don't know of any other areas to list as you requested but surely you can't keep on trying to build on our precious countryside.
There are however a row of derelict cottages next to a disused car showroom at the traffic lights by the artichoke pub which could be renovated and not have much effect on the surrounding areas. Maybe sites like this could be used, which have already been used previously. Or areas on "A"roads which would not affect or change village life.

The other reasons I object are as follows,

Local flooding- if there are more areas of hard standing/ roads etc there will be more localised flooding. The area is terrible for this as it is with gardens, paths and lanes around farms flooded after heavy rain.

Local roads- I walk my children to and from Ingrave school every day and Ingrave road is so busy with cars, lorries, buses etc it simply could not handle any more traffic. It is already overused with vehicles many of which are too busy to stop at the pedestrian crossings and with pavements much smaller than 1 metre in width in areas, I feel adding more traffic to this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over population of schools, roads.
Overworking police, hospitals, local authorities

I will list reasons for objections- there's quite a few so apologies for the length of this email!!

I can't list reference numbers as when going on to the link you sent the picture crashes and I can't see anything.

The areas of my objection are Ingrave and herongate.

But I would strongly oppose building/ developing in any areas of green belt land in any of the surrounding areas as the open countryside should be kept as it is for everyone to enjoy. However I don't think this reason will be enough so will continue to list my objections.

I was lucky enough to move to Ingrave 3 years ago and absolutely love the area and village life. I paid a considerable amount for my house and have since spent a lot of money building an extension overlooking beautiful countryside, Which is one of the areas marked to be developed.
I feel I paid a larger amount for my house as it is in a village location next to open countryside and I would not have spent in excess of £70,000 on an extension overlooking houses, roads etc.
We moved to a village to be part of a village community and have paid for this privilege, and places like this should be kept as they are. If every area with a field or open countryside let alone green belt land was built on and developed there would no areas like this left.
I understand the need for more housing but don't quite understand the need to make some of it affordable housing when this area is not an affordable area to buy a property and council tax is well over £200 per month. I imagine that the affordable housing would mean blocks of flats of however many floors which would absolutely ruin the look of these lovely villages. We have lovely old properties, cottages, farms etc and to build large areas of housing estates would take away it's beauty and turn into another town which would become over populated, overrun and not a very desirable place to live anymore.I don't know of any other areas to list as you requested but surely you can't keep on trying to build on our precious countryside.
There are however a row of derelict cottages next to a disused car showroom at the traffic lights by the artichoke pub which could be renovated and not have much effect on the surrounding areas. Maybe sites like this could be used, which have already been used previously. Or areas on "A"roads which would not affect or change village life.

The other reasons I object are as follows,

Local flooding- if there are more areas of hard standing/ roads etc there will be more localised flooding. The area is terrible for this as it is with gardens, paths and lanes around farms flooded after heavy rain.

Local roads- I walk my children to and from Ingrave school every day and Ingrave road is so busy with cars, lorries, buses etc it simply could not handle any more traffic. It is already overused with vehicles many of which are too busy to stop at the pedestrian crossings and with pavements much smaller than 1 metre in width in areas, I feel adding more traffic to this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over population of schools, roads.
Overworking police, hospitals, local authorities

I will list reasons for objections- there's quite a few so apologies for the length of this email!!

I can't list reference numbers as when going on to the link you sent the picture crashes and I can't see anything.

The areas of my objection are Ingrave and herongate.

But I would strongly oppose building/ developing in any areas of green belt land in any of the surrounding areas as the open countryside should be kept as it is for everyone to enjoy. However I don't think this reason will be enough so will continue to list my objections.

I was lucky enough to move to Ingrave 3 years ago and absolutely love the area and village life. I paid a considerable amount for my house and have since spent a lot of money building an extension overlooking beautiful countryside, Which is one of the areas marked to be developed.
I feel I paid a larger amount for my house as it is in a village location next to open countryside and I would not have spent in excess of £70,000 on an extension overlooking houses, roads etc.
We moved to a village to be part of a village community and have paid for this privilege, and places like this should be kept as they are. If every area with a field or open countryside let alone green belt land was built on and developed there would no areas like this left.
I understand the need for more housing but don't quite understand the need to make some of it affordable housing when this area is not an affordable area to buy a property and council tax is well over £200 per month. I imagine that the affordable housing would mean blocks of flats of however many floors which would absolutely ruin the look of these lovely villages. We have lovely old properties, cottages, farms etc and to build large areas of housing estates would take away it's beauty and turn into another town which would become over populated, overrun and not a very desirable place to live anymore.I don't know of any other areas to list as you requested but surely you can't keep on trying to build on our precious countryside.
There are however a row of derelict cottages next to a disused car showroom at the traffic lights by the artichoke pub which could be renovated and not have much effect on the surrounding areas. Maybe sites like this could be used, which have already been used previously. Or areas on "A"roads which would not affect or change village life.

The other reasons I object are as follows,

Local flooding- if there are more areas of hard standing/ roads etc there will be more localised flooding. The area is terrible for this as it is with gardens, paths and lanes around farms flooded after heavy rain.

Local roads- I walk my children to and from Ingrave school every day and Ingrave road is so busy with cars, lorries, buses etc it simply could not handle any more traffic. It is already overused with vehicles many of which are too busy to stop at the pedestrian crossings and with pavements much smaller than 1 metre in width in areas, I feel adding more traffic to this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over population of schools, roads.
Overworking police, hospitals, local authorities

I will list reasons for objections- there's quite a few so apologies for the length of this email!!

I can't list reference numbers as when going on to the link you sent the picture crashes and I can't see anything.

The areas of my objection are Ingrave and herongate.

But I would strongly oppose building/ developing in any areas of green belt land in any of the surrounding areas as the open countryside should be kept as it is for everyone to enjoy. However I don't think this reason will be enough so will continue to list my objections.

I was lucky enough to move to Ingrave 3 years ago and absolutely love the area and village life. I paid a considerable amount for my house and have since spent a lot of money building an extension overlooking beautiful countryside, Which is one of the areas marked to be developed.
I feel I paid a larger amount for my house as it is in a village location next to open countryside and I would not have spent in excess of £70,000 on an extension overlooking houses, roads etc.
We moved to a village to be part of a village community and have paid for this privilege, and places like this should be kept as they are. If every area with a field or open countryside let alone green belt land was built on and developed there would no areas like this left.
I understand the need for more housing but don't quite understand the need to make some of it affordable housing when this area is not an affordable area to buy a property and council tax is well over £200 per month. I imagine that the affordable housing would mean blocks of flats of however many floors which would absolutely ruin the look of these lovely villages. We have lovely old properties, cottages, farms etc and to build large areas of housing estates would take away it's beauty and turn into another town which would become over populated, overrun and not a very desirable place to live anymore.I don't know of any other areas to list as you requested but surely you can't keep on trying to build on our precious countryside.
There are however a row of derelict cottages next to a disused car showroom at the traffic lights by the artichoke pub which could be renovated and not have much effect on the surrounding areas. Maybe sites like this could be used, which have already been used previously. Or areas on "A"roads which would not affect or change village life.

The other reasons I object are as follows,

Local flooding- if there are more areas of hard standing/ roads etc there will be more localised flooding. The area is terrible for this as it is with gardens, paths and lanes around farms flooded after heavy rain.

Local roads- I walk my children to and from Ingrave school every day and Ingrave road is so busy with cars, lorries, buses etc it simply could not handle any more traffic. It is already overused with vehicles many of which are too busy to stop at the pedestrian crossings and with pavements much smaller than 1 metre in width in areas, I feel adding more traffic to this is an accident waiting to happen.

Over population of schools, roads.
Overworking police, hospitals, local authorities

Dear Sirs

I am sending this email as I have been unable to access the website or download the word versions of the consultation on my PC. Please accept this email as my comments to the consultation and in particular with reference to plot number 185 and my general views on the location of Doddinghurst for affordable housing and my comments on the alternative options across the Brentwood area.

Plot 185 is a piece of wooded greenbelt which my garden backs onto, so I am very familiar with this area and I am concerned that this piece of land is extremely unsuitable for affordable housing as the consultation is surveying views on.

It is a small parcel of land with very difficult vehicular access making it totally out of keeping with the surrounding area to use this site for housing. There is insufficient access for cars and such traffic would place Rectory Chase under far too much strain for a cul-de-sac turning. Access to the piece of land itself is single track and thus creating a proper roadway not only be difficult, but would completely alter the area and landscape. Access links to water, sewage drainage and power would also be difficult in this area.

This plot has a high density of wildlife including valuable birdlife diversity. I have identified over 20 different species in my garden, including increasingly less common birds across the British countryside - for example we regularly see/hear owls, great spotted and green woodpeckers, bullfinch, nuthatch, treecreepers. The area also supports a bat colony as we often see them flying during summer evenings. Hedgehogs also visit our gardens from this area. This is an animal which is in great decline across the UK (sadly the decline of this mammal is likely to make it extinct in the UK in 10 years time at the current rate). The stream at the end of the area gives it a special importance as a wildlife habitat and would be a tragic loss to choose an area such as this to build on. My interest in wildlife was one of the reasons I chose to live in a village environment so it is of great concern to me the devastation a building project here would create.

Apart from my personal concerns of this location, councils should try to protect greenbelt land in our county using brownfield wherever possible to reduce negative environmental impact across the county as wildlife habitat destruction is closely linked to the health and wellbeing of residents of Brentwood, especially children.

Whilst I quite understand the need for additional housing, I believe the infrastructure of Doddinghurst and surrounding villages is unsuitable for such expansion. The school, doctors surgery and small shopping area is at full capacity, so additional housing is going to create a requirement to build extra facilities. Transport is also likely to create problems accessing the village. The small Church/Stocks lane to the Ongar road is unsuitable for increased traffic or large vehicles, Doddinghurst Road is winding and regularly has accidents on it and the other access roads are country roads, not originally designed to take high levels of traffic. Public transport is limited to a infrequent bus service.

I do feel the expansion of the urban areas is more cost effective and reduces negative impact on the ecology of Essex. Expansion across either the A127 or A12 corridors gives better transport links both by public transport and suitable roads. A larger concentration of houses in an area allows for proper facilities and public transport to be provided for people as it creates economies of scale and allows for access without having to always use cars. Cars coming into the Brentwood town centre from outlying areas already causes traffic problems and has a negative effect of town businesses. Employment and business expansion is easier for people in more urban areas than rural locations where employment is very limited and will require people to commute greater distances, which is not compatible with providing affordable housing.

I hope my comments are helpful to you in your considerations.

Please may I be added to any groups to be kept updated of this consultation.

Thank you.

Dear Madam/Sir

Recently on 13 February 2015 we received a letter through our door from two concerned local residents informing
us that a development plan was in the pipeline for land at the end of Peartree Lane Doddinghurst and Lime Grove Doddinghurst,
for affordable housing through Brentwood Borough Council,

We had no prior knowledge of this whatsoever so it came as a big shock to us and all our neighbours especially to be told that we have to
reply by Tuesday 17 February 2015, no later than 5 pm.

This is a small village and the facilities are limited and this will put a huge strain on our little school, We are still getting over the
last development at the bottom of Outings Lane with youngsters tearing up the village on their bikes and groups of young people hanging round
the village shops and park in the evening, the crime rate round here soared as the affordable housing was filled with one parent families.

The noise and dust pollution will be horrendous for the local residents as these are only small roads.

Why is it that the Council are so intent on ruing village life and disregarding Green Belt Law, this could happen to one of you in the future
as I believe what comes around goes around.

See attached.

See attached.

See Attached.

See attached.

See attached

I was told to write in on my view about the planning developing in Blackmore village, Redrose Lane and Woollards Way, and second being other side of Fingrith Hall Road, linking with Orchard Piece. I would like to say I am all for it, the development should go ahead, I know people that would like to move into the village to be near their families where they have been brought up and my daughter has been waiting for 12 years to move into the village. I know many people in similar situations, so yes I am for it.

[See attached completed consultation questionnaire]

I was told to write in on my view about the planning developing in Blackmore village, Redrose Lane and Woollards Way, and second being other side of Fingrith Hall Road, linking with Orchard Piece. I would like to say I am all for it, the development should go ahead, I know people that would like to move into the village to be near their families where they have been brought up and my daughter has been waiting for 12 years to move into the village. I know many people in similar situations, so yes I am for it.

[See attached completed consultation questionnaire]

Q1: In general I agree with the areas being considered.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: No.

Q4: In the light of the poor nature of the land and its good transport links A127, A13 and M25 together with rail stations at Laindon and West Horndon it would seem sensible to develop this area.

Q5: Pockets could be developed but not ribbon development.

Q6: Limited tasteful developments with buildings designed to enhance the character and individuality of each village.

Q7: Yes with proper adequate road connections and boundary soft landscaping.

Q8: Yes but not at all cost and the detriment of other areas.

Q9: No there are some excellent open spaces in the areas with additional walks through the countryside.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5
Other:- Close to all amenities: 4

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3
Other:- Litter: 2

Q12: In light of the Crossrail changes at Shenfield Station proper plans need to be formulated for improvements both on and off station to cope with increased numbers of passengers which will be far greater than those disclosed by Crossrail over the next 12 years.

Q13: Easing traffic congestion around Shenfield Station and more car parking in the Borough in general.

Q1: Yes. It's logical.

Q2: No. Green Belt land must be left alone. Brownfield sites (in Green Belt) are fine if they have already been built on. Any spare land on brownfield sites in Green Belt should be left alone.

Q3: Yes. Don't build on Green Belt land, even the land at the edges of urban areas. It's all precious.

Q4: It's up to the local residents. I don't feel qualified to comment.

Q5: No. Terrible idea. It's Green Belt so leave it alone. In 30 years time they'll be asking if they should build on Green Belt land on the new edges of unknown areas resulting from whatever building gets forced through this time. If every generation builds a little more there'll be no countryside left.

Q6: Greenfield sites on the edge of villages must be left as they are. Brownfield sites are the preference, as long as they don't allude to picturesque, formally operational farmland sneakily hidden behind a euphemism!

Q7: No. There's Green Belt land the around strategic highway network, so I'm sorry but in my view that's not an option no matter how it's put to us.

Q8: Yes. There's always empty shop units and we've got to see that cinema/shopping complex.

Q9: No. Not that I'm aware.

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

Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: No. We need a new GP surgery in Brentwood regardless of any potential expansion. At the surgery I work at we are currently taking on new patients and the wait is two weeks before they can see any doctor, let alone their own.

Q13: As above [see representation ID 7929: "We need a new GP surgery in Brentwood regardless of any potential expansion. At the surgery I work at we are currently taking on new patients and the wait is two weeks before they can see any doctor, let alone their own."]

Potholes should be filled.

See attached.

The Kelvedon Hatch Parish Council discussed the Local Plan at both our January and February Council Meetings held on the 8th and 12th respectively. We have a series of observations to make.

In general we accept that more residential and employment sites are required over the next few decades, but would still prefer to protect the Green Belt where ever possible in line with the new NPPF guidance. We would favour development within "brown field" sites where previously green or agricultural activities have not been carried out for some time. We felt that of the four options given on page 11 of the Consultation Document either Nos. 3 or 4 would be preferable in order that "the pain was to be shared out more equally".

With particular reference to our parish of Kelvedon Hatch we realise that "brown field" development opportunities are very limited and nearly all the suggested sites given within the appendix on page 43 lie within the Green Belt. In general we felt that the preferable sites should be limited to the "in-fill" sites round the ragged development curtilege of the village itself. The most acceptable sites being those with three sides of attachment, reducing to two sides as less acceptable and with only one side or totally separated as least acceptable. We prefer infill sites as this is in agreement with the new NPPF guidance on Green Belt considerations.

Without going into consideration of each individual suggested site for our parish some examples would illustrate. The number of each site is as given in your appendix 2 for the Brizes and Doddinghurst Ward. Examples of more acceptable in-fill sites are 066, 168, 182, 194, 075 and 217. Although site 182, land adjacent to Heathlands, School Road, has recently been refused permission by the Borough Council, but it is still at appeal with the Inspectorate. Land to the rear of the Spinney, School Road (site 139) has been refused permission by the Borough Council and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Inspectorate. We would also like to point out that Woodlands, School Road (site 009) is privately owned, within the development envelope of the village and was the subject of an uproar within the village at the presentation of the earlier consultation in 2013. This was due to the fact that the first the owners had heard about their "redevelopment" was from the Brentwood Gazette. At the meeting the owners were reassured by the Borough Council Officers stating that no compulsory purchases were to be made.

Least acceptable sites are those such as 201, GT004, GT013 and those isolated areas to the south of the village such as 191, 221 and 210. A possible site that has yet to be included, which has more of an appropriate in-fill aspect is land to the west of Ongar Road between the Whitehouse (already granted planning permission, but with stringent conditions attached with regard to land decontamination) and Fairview. Ownership of this land would have to be established, but the land is in a neglected condition and has been so for many decades. Whilst the above examples are by no means a definitive list they give a flavour of the Parish Councils deliberations. In the fullness of time we would appreciate being consulted on each individual site that the Authority chooses to recommend if any at all.

The Consultation also requested our views on the proposed Dunton Garden Suburb. Much was made of the fact that we should not deign to comment on someone else's patch, however, it was noted that much of the area was brown field and also that the relevant Parish Council has been reported in the local press as having reluctantly agreed to the proposal after reassurances were made about suitable infrastructures considerations and improvements. It was also observed that such a large development would relieve pressure on the rest of the borough. It was felt that the Parish Council should be in favour of the Garden Suburb. In all these discussions mention was made of the need to properly assess and provide upgrades to the required infrastructure for any developments within the Borough. This would include all services such as sewerage, electricity, gas, internet as well as roads, cycle paths and pavements. Considerations should also be made with regard to schools and medical service provision. Such upgrades would of course be part of the developer's conditions in order not to overload, any further, the existing services.

The Parish Council hopes that these views will be helpful to the consultation and we would appreciate receiving the results and any further decisions by the Borough Council on the Local Plan.

The Kelvedon Hatch Parish Council discussed the Local Plan at both our January and February Council Meetings held on the 8th and 12th respectively. We have a series of observations to make.

In general we accept that more residential and employment sites are required over the next few decades, but would still prefer to protect the Green Belt where ever possible in line with the new NPPF guidance. We would favour development within "brown field" sites where previously green or agricultural activities have not been carried out for some time. We felt that of the four options given on page 11 of the Consultation Document either Nos. 3 or 4 would be preferable in order that "the pain was to be shared out more equally".

With particular reference to our parish of Kelvedon Hatch we realise that "brown field" development opportunities are very limited and nearly all the suggested sites given within the appendix on page 43 lie within the Green Belt. In general we felt that the preferable sites should be limited to the "in-fill" sites round the ragged development curtilege of the village itself. The most acceptable sites being those with three sides of attachment, reducing to two sides as less acceptable and with only one side or totally separated as least acceptable. We prefer infill sites as this is in agreement with the new NPPF guidance on Green Belt considerations.

Without going into consideration of each individual suggested site for our parish some examples would illustrate. The number of each site is as given in your appendix 2 for the Brizes and Doddinghurst Ward. Examples of more acceptable in-fill sites are 066, 168, 182, 194, 075 and 217. Although site 182, land adjacent to Heathlands, School Road, has recently been refused permission by the Borough Council, but it is still at appeal with the Inspectorate. Land to the rear of the Spinney, School Road (site 139) has been refused permission by the Borough Council and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Inspectorate. We would also like to point out that Woodlands, School Road (site 009) is privately owned, within the development envelope of the village and was the subject of an uproar within the village at the presentation of the earlier consultation in 2013. This was due to the fact that the first the owners had heard about their "redevelopment" was from the Brentwood Gazette. At the meeting the owners were reassured by the Borough Council Officers stating that no compulsory purchases were to be made.

Least acceptable sites are those such as 201, GT004, GT013 and those isolated areas to the south of the village such as 191, 221 and 210. A possible site that has yet to be included, which has more of an appropriate in-fill aspect is land to the west of Ongar Road between the Whitehouse (already granted planning permission, but with stringent conditions attached with regard to land decontamination) and Fairview. Ownership of this land would have to be established, but the land is in a neglected condition and has been so for many decades. Whilst the above examples are by no means a definitive list they give a flavour of the Parish Councils deliberations. In the fullness of time we would appreciate being consulted on each individual site that the Authority chooses to recommend if any at all.

The Consultation also requested our views on the proposed Dunton Garden Suburb. Much was made of the fact that we should not deign to comment on someone else's patch, however, it was noted that much of the area was brown field and also that the relevant Parish Council has been reported in the local press as having reluctantly agreed to the proposal after reassurances were made about suitable infrastructures considerations and improvements. It was also observed that such a large development would relieve pressure on the rest of the borough. It was felt that the Parish Council should be in favour of the Garden Suburb. In all these discussions mention was made of the need to properly assess and provide upgrades to the required infrastructure for any developments within the Borough. This would include all services such as sewerage, electricity, gas, internet as well as roads, cycle paths and pavements. Considerations should also be made with regard to schools and medical service provision. Such upgrades would of course be part of the developer's conditions in order not to overload, any further, the existing services.

The Parish Council hopes that these views will be helpful to the consultation and we would appreciate receiving the results and any further decisions by the Borough Council on the Local Plan.