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.

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.

see attached

Q3: Yes - I am writing in response to the planning application 1216 in relation to the proposed housing development in Doddinghurst, directly opposite my house.
I moved into my house in December 2014, and I have only found out about this proposal in the last couple of days from neighbours. From the information I have been supplied with, the consultation commenced in July to Sept 2013, however, none of these proposals showed up with any searches that were carried out by my solicitor on my behalf.

Further more, my solicitor was unable to discover whom the roadway in front of my property belonged to, and insurance had to be taken out to cover the legal costs should an owner turn up and try to prevent or obstruct access to my property. This roadway is a single-track dirt road, which has to be maintained at the expense and by the local residents who live on this dirt track. Potholes are a frequent problem from the small amount of traffic that currently uses it. One of the manholes was smashed by a delivery lorry, which had to be repaired by on the utility companies last summer.

Searches on my property also revealed that my property lies in a flood area. The edge of the building plot currently has a stream running along side of it. If this field is built on, will it increase the risk of my property, and my neighbours' property of being flooded, as the field will no longer be able to retain the floodwater?

I have downsized and moved to this quiet rural area overlooking green fields. Had I been aware of this proposed building development, at the time, I would never have purchased my property, as I would not wish to look over a play space and a housing estate.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be used first before Green Belt.

Q9: No - This area is rural and we want to keep it that way.

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

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

Q12: Minimal bus routes. Flood area. Open streams. Small roads and numerous parked cars. Unadopted, unmade road in front of 72, 74, 76 Peartree Lane.

See attached.

See attachement.

see attached

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.

see attached

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.

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.

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.

see attached

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.

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).