Question 7

Showing comments and forms 451 to 480 of 561

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11037

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Sweeney

Representation Summary:

Yes. With better links to London and beyond via Crossrail I feel that development close to the stategic highway network should be considered. By linking a new development to a good bus service servicing the stations would possibly reduce the need for increase in car park spaces.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11060

Received: 14/04/2015

Respondent: Mrs. June Sykes

Representation Summary:

No. I think all existing industrial estates should be looked at to make sure the and is being used to full capacity as these areas tend to have good roads already & no housing.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11069

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Herietta Riches

Representation Summary:

Yes. However increasing housing means there is a greater demand for employment in the area which needs to be sustainable.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11076

Received: 14/04/2015

Respondent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association

Representation Summary:

100% YES.

Full text:

See attachement.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11091

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Stuart Lucas

Representation Summary:

Yes, transport links and ease of communications are paramount

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11106

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr. Jack Thorpe

Representation Summary:

Employment opportunities are necessary but they must be accessible by road or public transport.

Full text:

Q1: Yes - The three areas have different requirements, so it seems logical to split them.

Q2: No - The A127 corridor is already at or over capacity in rush hours. If there is more building in this area, where will all the traffic go?

Q3: Yes - Change of use of the industrial site to housing is logical as it is a brownfield site. However, West Horndon villagers value their way of life and do not want to see a too great enlargement of the village.

Q4: A12 corridor. The A127 would need an extra lane to cater for additional traffic as a result of more housing. There may be room for more building but there is a big penalty in infrastructure.

Q5: Yes - There is more capacity in this area without too much penalty in future traffic requirements.

Q6: The Green Belt has been carefully protected in the past. Brownfield sites should be used where available.

Q7: Yes - Employment opportunities are necessary but they must be accessible by road or public transport.

Q8: Yes - Brentwood Council should reduce business rates and parking charges to encourage more people to shop in Brentwood instead of 'out of town supermarkets'.

Q9: Yes - West Horndon would benefit greatly from the provision of a footbridge over the A127 to enable the easier use of Thorndon Park.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 3
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4
Other - Community Spirit: 4

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

Q12: Yes - Traffic volumes on all local roads needs careful consideration. Also parking requirements for rail users.

Q13: All items of infrastructure related to the amount of building in particular areas.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11121

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Town

Representation Summary:

No. Inadequate infrastructure space to support new sites

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11143

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs. Daphne Gilbert

Representation Summary:

Yes and No - Not sure - more traffic on motorways?

Full text:

Q1: No - Do not feel able to comment.

Q2: See Q1 comment.

Q3: Yes - Have already registered objections to proposed development of site 011A, and new extensions 011B, 011C and 0176 are not welcome either.

Q4: Not able to make any useful comment.

Q5: No - Better to fill in brownfield sites within the urban areas to prevent urban spread.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes and No - Not sure - more traffic on motorways?

Q8: Yes - We need good shops, but not so many eating places. A cinema would be nice as well.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Tranquility: 3

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

Q12: Yes - Pressure on services, i.e. doctors etc.

Q13: Improvement on roads and faster rail service from Brentwood to London.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11159

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jean Sibbald

Representation Summary:

But only if the strategic highway network can cope? Does the A127 fall into this category?

Full text:

Q1: Yes - It makes sense to spread the housing growth across the Borough.

Q2: No - The A127 is already overloaded as is the rail network Fenchurch Street to Southend. We value our open spaces as much as the people in the north of the borough.

Q3: Yes - This area cannot take this development either on brownfield sites or Green Belt land. Consider the risk of flooding.

Q4: To develop adjacent to this village (or over develop the industrial site) would destroy this village. It seems that Dunton Garden village is the ideal solution.

Q5: Yes - We feel that the A12 corridor has the most potential for growth.

Q6: Develop (within reason) brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes - But only if the strategic highway network can cope? Does the A127 fall into this category?

Q8: Yes - Consideration must be given to maintain town centre.

Q9: No - Unless desire is made to build on Green Belt the answer is NO. Certainly develop brownfield sites.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 5

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

Q12: No - The amount of development proposed for West Horndon cannot take place without the road and rail network being massively improved and we cannot imagine this being accomplished.

Q13: All categories concerning every day living should be prioritised simultaneously.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11172

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Duncan

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: No - Who would want to live on a busy, noisy major road.

Q6: Brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Leave as it is.

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

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

Q12: No.

Q13: That will depend on how much the government is prepared to give.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11191

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Susan Dunn

Representation Summary:

Yes. Using the Industrial area in West Horndon for housing will not bring more employment to the village it will take it away. Where industrial sites are located you need to have public transport i.e trains and buses none of these area available on the proposed site on the A127, not all people drive so therefore you would be discrimating against those who do not drive

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11202

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline MacDonald

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: Dunton corridor.

Q5: No - Nobody wants to live on a major road.

Q6: Brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: No.

Q13: Spear to Eric Pickles.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11220

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Robert Skingley

Representation Summary:

Not necessarily - Anywhere with road access or rail access.

Full text:

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Dunton site and others along A127 are the most suitable as they have good transport links and are currently underdeveloped. West Horndon has both rail and road connections.

Q4: Dunton Garden village A127. West Horndon A127 and rail links both relatively underdeveloped.

Q5: No - No! This area is already heavily developed. Green Belt fringes are essential for open space and the well being of all residents in this area. Green Belt here has beauty and is environmentally essential, for wildlife and residents.

Q6: No - Brownfield sites offer the best opportunities. None of the negativities of greenfield developments.

Q7: No - Not necessarily - Anywhere with road access or rail access.

Q8: No - Parking is an issue in Brentwood. Out of town shopping centres are preferred by shoppers where parking is free, i.e. Pipps Hill, Mayflower, Chelmer village - all out of the borough. Brentwood should aim to compete.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes - Main infrastructure issues considered.

Q13: Improving Ongar Road access to Brentwood at busy times. Free available parking to encourage rail use (not for commuter parking but for local residents outside of commuter peak times).

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11243

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Christina Atkins

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

Q1: No - Overall we agree but have reservation about option 5.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Brownfield sites.

Q4: The Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No to greenfield, yes to brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Many people visit Blackmore Village because it has history and also retains its identity and charm as a 'small village'. It is imperative that Blackmore village is kept as it is for future generations to enjoy. This village is surrounded by farmland and is not a continuation of Doddinghurst and this is how it should remain. Although some building has taken place over the last few years most villagers think that this is now enough!

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

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Sheltered housing for the elderly must be considered.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11258

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Denis Nobbs

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11280

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr James Beenham

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11297

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Lynda Hills

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11310

Received: 16/04/2015

Respondent: Mr W P Wix

Representation Summary:

Yes and no.
Depends on how many local people will work there.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11342

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: MRS JANE MILES

Representation Summary:

Yes. Plus there should be good links to the bus and train networks to accommodate the commuters in the area.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11344

Received: 16/04/2015

Respondent: David and Lesley Peterson

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11349

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Lukas Warren

Representation Summary:

With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11376

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Anthony Warren

Representation Summary:

With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11400

Received: 12/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Linda Warren

Representation Summary:

With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Full text:

See attached representation.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11413

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Ms Martine Schweyer

Representation Summary:

Yes. Subject again to full and adequate infrastructure and no loss or reduced quality of any of these including road and community services (NHS, Schools and hospitals) for exiting householders.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11441

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Theresa Webster

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11463

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Stephen Tower

Representation Summary:

No. I greatly believe that you could develop existing areas more efficiently and provide employment opportunities through those areas.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11476

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Louise Phillips

Representation Summary:

No. If you build tasteful small villages there is no need to be on a highway network.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11513

Received: 13/02/2015

Respondent: Hutton Preservation Society

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

Because of my very long association with Hutton Preservation Society I have been asked by its secretary (there is no chairman at present) to give our views on this subject.

As longtime members of CPRE and the Metropolitan Green Belt we have fought strenuously over the years to keep this area of Hutton, with its conservation village, without undue building. We do recognise, however, the difficulties the Borough is under, we really have considered the matter impartially.

If Brentwood and Basildon can come to proper agreement, of the three difficult categories this Society feels that of the Dunton Garden Suburb must be the best. It presents so much the better facilities, despite the sad reduction in the Green Belt. There would be opportunity for a sustainable community. In our area we cannot see this happening without drastic change.

1) What prospect has ECC for upgrading the A129 say in the next decade? At times it is infinitely overcrowded, flooded in this area in three places and a source of several accidents. It cannot support heavy construction lorries and nor can the surrounding country lanes. Which are already suffering hugely? A dual carriageway?

2) Much of the suggested farmland has received from DEFRA considerable tax payers money in the form of single farm payments. This could be substantial consideration. It is by no means a huge brownfield site.

3) Like, sadly much of the borough, we have many historical associations, Roman coins, Saxon broaches, Tudor brick kiln and so on are all found along Church Lane, a very early settlement. It is a constant joy to its many walker as this Society has frequently been told. It has poor communal facilities however, no GPs, no immediate state schools, no late evening buses, no easy train service. Transport would need total revision (in this of course I refer only to the Hutton Preservation area). Also this too, this committee felt would apply to the scrubland and scenic villages of your third option, the most difficult and complex of them all.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to take part in the consultation. We have always been grateful to the Council for helping us to uphold the Green Belt over the years.

Consultation Questionnaire:

Q1: Yes - In a difficult situation they are the best choice.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Sadly ECC will have a restricted budget for many years. Can we manage transport difficulties to heavy materials needed for growth without maximum disturbance?

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes - I think needs must, but with care and reluctance.

Q6: Most definitely brownfield sites, even within the Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - With reservation and common sense.

Q9: No - We are very fortunate and have open space and it is much used.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Air Quality: 5

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

Q12: Yes - This seems to me to be an exceedingly comprehensive review of a very complex subject. Most of us dislike change but the population pressures on this area and political influence have forced it on us.

Q13: Alas, road structure in my corridor at least coupled with transport in general of which Crossrail is going to be a future unknown entity, both good and bad. And health facilities of all kinds are already a problem with an already exploding population.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11525

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Gerald Mountstevens

Representation Summary:

Yes - I think this would be the most obvious solution

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 11542

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Padfield

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: