Q1: Yes - There are three areas north, centre, south.

Q2: No - South A127 corridor over used, C2C trains packed rush hour. Building on Green Belt that has historic flooding poor idea. No development of Shenfield area making use of Crossrail.

Q3: Yes - Development on brownfield site at West Horndon only. This alone will have major effect on village (infrastructure issues). No development on Green Belt, historic flood risk not fully appreciated.

Q4: I don't agree A127 has greater growth capacity, (other borough developments not considered in A127 capacity). Dunton Garden makes more sense than rest of proposals.

Q5: Yes - Park and ride to Crossrail hub has great potential.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be used first, i.e. Wash Road. Near Crossrail major hub. M25 Industrial site poor choice, road use only. No public transport.

Q7: Yes - Public transport must be accessible. Road use alone (poor idea).

Q8: Yes - Public transport to centre a must. A busy High Street a must for local and visitors to borough.

Q9: Yes - West Horndon Park could be better developed.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 3
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

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 - Over developed in south, West Horndon should not be doubled or trebled in size (Education, health, transport, flood risk not fully assessed!)

Q13: Public transport. Over reliant on roads.

Q1: Yes - The 3 different areas make sense.

Q2: No - Why does the A127 corridor have more potential than A12? The A127 is already at capacity in rush hour. We value our open space because we are nearer. The outer London boroughs and Green Belt is very important to us.

Q3: Yes - The brownfield site at West Horndon (the industrial estate) (A20-A21) which has a proposal for 500 would practically double the size of our village and this without any Green Belt development would alter the character of West Horndon. Flood risk must be taken seriously.

Q4: I do not agree with the statement, the A127 has a greater capacity than A12. Therefore feel that the only development around West Horndon should be the industrial estate (A20-21). Surely great development could occur in connection with new Crossrail line.

Q5: Yes - A12 corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of Borough's increased housing need. As does Crossrail corridor.

Q6: Brownfield sites should always be first choice for building needs. Green Belt land particularly south of the borough where we are enclosed between Upminster and Basildon is greatly valued both as open space and flood relief.

Q7: It has been suggested that the present industrial site in West Horndon be relocated to the junction of A127 and M25. This seems an excellent idea provided that transport links be established from West Horndon Station, for workforce who presently come by train.

Q8: Yes - But we do need better transports into the town centre particularly later in evening it isn't any good having late opening in Brentwood if we can't get back.

Q9: It would be good to have a sports centre on the land adjacent to the Industrial estate.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 3
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: Education - West Horndon School is a village school. New schools would be needed to cope with any significant growth. The same would apply to health care difficult to get doctors appointment at present.

Q13: Infrastructure needs to be in place prior to any development.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: No. Green Belt areas should be kept as such.

Q2: It is Green Belt, there should be no issues.

Q3: Yes, as above [see response to question 1, Rep ID: 8969: "No. Green Belt areas should be kept as such."]

Q4: None

Q5: No. Only if they are brownfield sites.

Q6: Brown sites only.

Q7: No. Brown sites only.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes. Keep green-green.

Q13: In this area, none.

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes. Building on brownfield is acceptable if it is for natural growth of Brentwood. Building on Brentwood is not necessary for Brentwood.

Q4: A127 is already too busy.

Q5: No. Not in Green Belt.

Q6: No I don't agree to this on the edge of villages.

Q7: No need to build on local land or Green Belt.

Q8: No. No new sites are necessary.

Q9: Yes.

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

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

Q12: Yes. We cannot have any more housing.

Q13: Do not need anymore infrastructure.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - 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.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - 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.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - 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.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

See attached

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - 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.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

See attached

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - 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.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

See attached

See attached

See attached

Q1: No

Q2: Yes

Q3: No

Q4: A127 corridor

Q5: No

Q6: To develop brownfield sites

Q7: Yes - As long as road improvements are made to cope with the additional traffic.

Q8: Yes

Q9: No

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

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

Q12: Yes

Q13: Transport and healthcare. If there's an accident on the M25 traffic on A128 is already gridlocked.

See attached.

Q1: Yes - All brownfield first, then minimum use of greenfield.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Minimise urban sprawl and also try and minimise traffic congestion that exists already.

Q4: A127 growth corridor will negatively impact already over loaded traffic situation on A128 Brentwood Road.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Only develop existing brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

See attached.

Q1: Yes - As long as brownfield is first option and greenfield encroachment is kept to a minimum.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Minimise urban sprawl.

Q4: A127 growth corridor impacts on traffic flow on A128 between A127 and Brentwood which is already beyond capacity at peak times.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Only develop existing brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes.

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

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

Q12: Yes - Existing traffic over capacity of A128 between A127 and Brentwood.

See attached.

Q1: No - The continual suggested large scale developments of predominantly greenbelt land is unacceptable. The small villages of Brentwood are historic and do not need developing into an inner city style extension of London.

Q2: No - The tone of wording used suggests small developments in villages with minimal use of Green Belt land, however, this does not match up with the proposed sites, with for example 028C and 192 large areas of Green Belt with thousands of proposed new houses. Your presenting of issues is done disingenuously.

Q3: Yes - Again to ref 028C and 192. An area of largely Green Belt land the size of Shenfield and Hutton combined put forward for development?! This is not 'allowing villages to grow to meet local need' it is turning rural environment into a large urban area. Villages aren't growing they are being absorbed into a new town.

Q4: A127 growth corridor. Largely due to the fact that there is only one settlement there however, again scale of development is key; adding another village the size of Ingrave is not unreasonable, creating a town the size of Shenfield is.

Q5: No - Releasing sites on the edges of urban areas and turning all the land between two towns into housing are two different things. I would say yes however, the developments being suggested are so large that they cannot be described as sites on urban edges but entire new towns. Again your presenting of the question is divisive and disingenuous.

Q6: Green field sites should not be used, that is the point of them being greenfield, they are natural land preserved; not for development. So brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes - Which further supports my point that sites should be kept to a minimum in size; to reduce congestion on the current network.

Q8: Yes - But it is vital that we do not lose the historic look of our town centre or build in a way that does not fit with the aesthetic of the town.

Q9: Yes.

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

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

Q12: This question largely depends on what you mean by terms like 'Green Infrastructure'. Furthermore I would look at supporting and maintaining the historic villages in Brentwood and the infrastructure required.

Q13:
Education
Green Areas (Wildlife etc)
Healthcare
Historical Maintenance.

Q1: No - The majority of proposed sites appear to be greenbelt areas.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes - The majority of the proposed sites are greenbelt/farmland particularly the proposal for Herongate/Ingrave area.

Q4: Neither. Traffic already very heavy. A128 constantly facing delays and problems as is A127 and A12.

Q5: No - Green Belt land.

Q6: Brownfield only.

Q7: Future employment is only viable if companies and employers are willing to start up in the Borough.

Q8: Yes - Parking and transport links to support this need to be addressed.

Q9: No - Already lots of open spaces Thorndon Country Park. Green Belt with footpath access.

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

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

Q12: Yes - SSSI sites/ Green Belt/ farmland/ nature conservation/ doctors/ schools/ highways/ sustainable expansion of Borough close to rail network.

Q13: Roads/ healthcare/ education social and leisure facilities. Public transport improvements.

Q1: The idea of constant growth is ridiculous, villages are being turned into towns! This is a national problem not a local, in the north of England derelict houses are being pulled down.

Q2: Yes - By all means consider the issues, providing that the answer in Q1 is considered.

Q3: As one who is opposed to the envisaged growth there seems to be little point in commenting on any individual site.

Q4: None. The A127 is developing into a built up corridor from London to Southend.

Q5: No - The previous answers deal with this.

Q6: No, no, no.

Q7: No - Turn the disused office blocks into factories.

Q8: Yes - But no more supermarkets.

Q9: Yes - Instead of farmland being sold to developers, use it for leisure.

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

Q11:
Nature Reserves/Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/Derelict/Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure/Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: No - This whole programme should have been rejected. We have an MP who is a member of the government, what is his part in this?

Q13: The previous answers deal with this.

For a consultation process this must be seen as a disgrace. While there has been talk of growth - only today (16/02/2015) have we seen consultation documents. It has to be asked just who has been consulted.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes.

Q4: None.

Q5: No.

Q6: No development on any Green Belt.

Q7: No.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Public transport.