Q1: No. I object to building on Green Belt.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes. Brownfield sites only.

Q4: There is no capacity for growth on the A127.

Q5: Yes. Only on brownfield sites.

Q6: Most of the housing will not be for local need.

Q7: No. We have enough empty shops and business premises that will enable employment opportunities.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

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

Q12: Yes. Already close to capacity.

See attached.

see attached.

See attached.

see attached

Q1: Yes. Accept there is a need for growth but not to alter existing small community villages.

Q2: No.

Q3: A large space near to A127 which does not effect the living conditions of a small village community seems a more acceptable choice to progress development. [site ref 200]

Q4: Dunton site. [site ref 200]

Q5: Yes. The old scrap yard of the A12 towards Mountnessing has yet to be developed? [site ref 107]

Q6: Better to develop independent sites on edges with access to highway network.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. With a fair mix of shops retail not just restaurants and bars.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Community Spirit: 5

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

Q12: Yes. The fact that you are completely changing a small village whose facilities are appropriate to its residents.

Q13: Developing small new communities near t main road access not changing existing small areas.
Q1: Yes. Accept there is a need for growth but not to alter existing small community villages.

Q2: No.

Q3: A large space near to A127 which does not effect the living conditions of a small village community seems a more acceptable choice to progress development.

Q4: Dunton site. [site ref 200]

Q5: Yes. The old scrap yard of the A12 towards Mountnessing has yet to be developed? [site ref 107]

Q6: Better to develop independent sites on edges with access to highway network.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. With a fair mix of shops retail not just restaurants and bars.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Community Spirit: 5

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

Q12: Yes. The fact that you are completely changing a small village whose facilities are appropriate to its residents.

Q13: Developing small new communities near t main road access not changing existing small areas.

see attached

Comment form and letter submitted, see attached.

Q1: Yes - They have different aspects, so yes.

Q2: No - Flooding is a problem on the A127 corridor. The A127 is busier than the A12 and the A12 has more potential for development. The open farmland of the A127 is not inferior to that elsewhere in the borough, how has this conclusion been reached?

Q3: Yes - 037 A, B and C and 126 are all Green Belt surrounding the village. If the industrial estates are developed, the 400+ houses proposed there will increase West Horndon by 70%. To build on the surrounding Green Belt as well would be inappropriate development and damaging to the local environment. Flooding would also be a major issue.

Q4: Site 200 - Dunton Garden Suburb should be developed in preference to the fields surrounding West Horndon (037, 038 & 126). Infrastructure must be established, and a buffer zone around West Horndon should be put in place to preserve the village.

Q5: Yes - As Brentwood needs so many houses, all suitable sites along the A12 should be considered. Why should it be centred around West Horndon and the A127?

Q6: Brownfield sites should always be considered in preference to Greenfield. Green Belt should be preserved.

Q7: Yes - From an environmental view as well as the practical view, this makes sense, although public transport must be provided.

Q8: Yes - Good public transport links are essential to ensure economic sustainability in the established town centres. Ease of car park facilities should also be a priority.

Q9: Yes - We have a small park at present. With the likely development of the new industrial sites and the potential development of DSG, more open space will be required for the village, certainly not less.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - The A128 will be heavily impacted by any development and this should also be considered for upgrading.

Q13: My priorities would be transport, health and education, which should be in place before the developments need them!
Other comments: Dunton Garden Suburb is my preferred option.

see attached

See attachment.

see attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No - The A127 is always busy and there are frequent roadworks. The A12 flows much better. The A127 is prone to flooding, which causes further delays.

Q3: Yes - The areas 020 and 021 are brownfield industrial sites, which are already in the 5 year land supply. If 400-500 houses are built here, that will change West Horndon by about 80% increase in housing. 037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are Green Belt. This would be inappropriate development and would cause environmental harm. These fields are frequently water logged and therefore prone to flooding.

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb is preferred. It has a great deal of potential for growth, as although it is in our parish, it is outside the village. Robust buffer zones should be established however.

Q5: Yes - Brentwood should use the available sites for significant development in these areas. As previously stated, I believe there is more capacity on the A12 rather than the A127.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be developed, greenfield should not be developed, and should be regarded as sacrosanct.

Q7: Yes - Transport by bus from railway stations must be established.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes - We have a park in West Horndon. The potential development of the Dunton Harden Suburb should include more open spaces for us, as DSG will impact us.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 2
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 2

Q12: As previously stated, the A127 struggles now. No information seems to be available re C2C.

Q13: Health, education and transport are what I consider to be priorities. These must be established sooner, rather than later.

see attached

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No - A127 is already over capacity and residential properties run right up to it. A12 should be given greater consideration. No consideration has been given to the flood risk around A127.

Q3: Yes - Brownfield sites should always be used over Green Belt. West Horndon is a small village and we wish it to stay this way. Therefore preference for site 200 over everything else.

Q4: Site 200 - albeit not enough consideration has been given to A12 corridor and this should be re-addressed.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Brownfield without question!

Q7: Yes - But consideration also needs to be given to public transport accessibility.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5
Other - Community: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Local infrastructure such as public transport, local schools, health care etc. Roads currently inadequate at rush hour (A127 and A12) and this will get worse.

Q13: Roads, healthcare, education. We currently don't even have street lights that work.

see attached.

Q1: Yes - It seems very comprehensive.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - I think the Dunton Village is appropriate together with planned development shown on pages 192 to 197. I agree that the development of any existing village housing is to be in small packages (no more than 10).

Q4: Dunton Village.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No I don't think its appropriate in anything other than small packages (no more than 10). In Blackmore any development as proposed by 2 applicants for anything up to 90 + 60 residents is ridiculously excessive.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 3
Other - Historic Church, St Lawrence, Blackmore: 4

Q11:
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 4
Other - Blackmore school and village hall complex: 4

Q12: I strongly believe that owners of unoccupied residents should be heavily penalized, and if when left empty for a long time (? 12 months) without occupation they should be compulsory purchased. If this were done it would go well toward the housing needs up to 2030. Make selfish house owners pay!! Or let or sell their property.

Q13: See above.

Q1: No - It is already too big.

Q2: Do not increase the size of Brentwood.

Q3: No new development.

Q4: None.

Q5: Certainly not.

Q6: No.

Q7: No.

Q8: No.

Q9: No change needed.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

Q11: How can these aspects be occasional and frequent?

Q12: Leave things as they are.

Q13: Save our money.

Other comments: Reduce English population back to 49 million people.

see attached.

Q1: No - All areas are in Green Belt.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes - Lime Grove Doddinghurst - The proposed 50 house development at the end of the above road, making Lime Grove the access, is appalling. Lime Grove has a problem with parked cars either side of the road making it very difficult for even the dustman or fire engine to enter. Introducing a further 100 cars per day ay least, would endanger our quality of life and safety for our children, should this development be accepted then access should be directly onto Doddinghurst Road.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites ONLY.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 1
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 1 and 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - What happens to a small community when introducing a large amount of properties overloading any amenities that exist.

Q13: Roads, transport, jobs, schools. These do not apply to the Parishes.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No. Road and infrastructure issues. The A127 is a bottleneck already.

Q3: Yes. Use brownfield sites.

Q4: Site 200 [entire land east of A128, south of A127]

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Brownfield sites should always be considered firstly.

Q7: Yes. But control the sites with villagers input.

Q8: Yes, but with control and input from village representatives.

Q9: Yes. Improve the park facilities for the next generation.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - Outlook and Views: 5

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

Q12: Yes. You should really consider what the next/younger generation want.

Q13: Be open and fully transparent in all your undertakings and be diplomatic.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: As outlined in the earlier proposal we would not want to see any further main development sites!

Q4: The original main site at West Horndon.

Q5: Only with the necessary infrastructure being in place.

Q6: No.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - Retain our area as it is: 5

Q11:
Houses: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Other - Country Walks: 4

Q12: Please consider our rural way of life and not overload our area.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes - I agree, but infrastructure is very weak (i.e. drainage) in Rectory Chase at the moment. Flooding can be a problem. Waiting time at the doctors is also high and the school is full.

Q3: Yes - 185 Rectory Chase. Development, of the type mentioned, would create chronic traffic problems. Access is very restricted. This site could only really cope with one or two houses.

Q4: A127. Although there are congestion problems here, the A12 also suffers severe congestion problems.

Q5: No.

Q6: Develop greenfield sites on the edge of villages, which would then require additional infrastructure.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - Retail in Brentwood is awful. Far too many eating places but very few quality shops.

Q9: Yes, along the stream (River Wid) at the back of 185 Rectory Chase. It could be a lovely area, full of wildlife, and follow the footpath.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ recreation facilities: 2

Q12: Congestion 185 Rectory Chase. Could not take the level of traffic, proposed development would create, drainage is also very important.

Q13: Drainage, education, healthcare, road maintenance, preservation of community leisure and culture.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes - The road and rail infrastructure not able to take any more.

Q3: Yes - Site 200 Dunton Garden Suburb would be my choice giving the buffer of land to maintain West Horndon as a village as we would like. This is why we moved here not to be a town!

Q4: Again site 200 due to new infrastructure being laid down as a new site and not making do with already crowded roads around and in West Horndon.

Q5: Yes - The A12 should have the ability to meet and help on this any suitable site should also be looked at rather than all in just one location which overpopulates.

Q6: Brownfield site should always be put ahead of Green Belt. This was done originally to protect our countryside and what live in it. I think this has been forgotten.

Q7: Yes - We do not want the existing site changed to housing but agree that any working /employment needs to be on public transport links.

Q8: Yes - We need our own shops but are happy with existing we need to make sure that our local shops stay "alive" and build these up primary.

Q9: Yes - This would be good if the Dunton Garden Suburb goes ahead as this will give access to Thorndon Park. Not so if West Horndon is developed.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor recreation/ leisure use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5
Other - village life and feel: 5+

Q11:
Houses: 2
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure/ recreation facilities: 2
Other - Cleanliness around the road coming into the village: -1

Q12: Yes - Many and what if anything West Horndon can take. We are really only two roads!

Q13: Top priority otherwise you will grid lock on area which is already bursting! Hospitals, Drs and schools need to be in with these not just transport links. These are main reasons for concern. We do feel that West Horndon is treated like the poor side of Brentwood and you would rather spoil our area than any other more lucrative points on the A12 side of the Borough.

see attached

Q1: Yes

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - 185 Currently good break between housing and open space. In Green Belt which should not be eroded. Only has 2.7m road in for access (I own other 1m). Village does not need extending into Green Belt currently rural and should stay this way.

Q4: Need to keep villages in current settings, any brownfield sites should be considered.

Q5: No.

Q6: Develop brownfield but not Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Good provision at present.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Making current roads safe. Direct access from A12 to Brentwood centre. Transport in village and surrounds poor so should be no further development.