see attached

we must keep all the green spaces and add to them if we can

Q1: Yes - Assuming the Dunton project is approved the balance of housing required should be allocated fairly evenly over the three areas.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - A12 Corridor. Major intrusions into the Green Belt, such as Officers Meadow must be avoided. However some development by the Mountnessing roundabout on the old scrap yard and associated with a redeveloped BP garage (currently a road hazard) is acceptable.

Q4: No comment as I do not know the area well. Local views are the important ones.

Q5: Yes - Only to limited extent as infill on brownfield sites are to be preferred.

Q6: Limited extensions of villages still creates a community but Greenfield sites may be isolated and not part of the community.

Q7: Yes - Subject to largely respecting Green Belt.

Q8: Yes for Brentwood Central but not for lesser shopping areas which are only adequate as they are at present (e.g. Shenfield).

Q9: Yes - Shenfield and Hutton are short of public space and playing fields.

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

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

Q12: Yes

Q13: Traffic and parking. Redevelopment of Shenfield station forecourt and the adjacent British Rail owned properties. Extra parking requirement for Crossrail is likely to be limited in spite of what press says.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - I feel that the A12 corridor proposal should not be considered because of the damage to rural areas.

Q4: I feel the Dunton proposal is best suited.

Q5: No.

Q6: Brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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: 4
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Transport and public amenities.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes - I do not feel that the A12 corridor proposal is appropriate because of the loss of Green Belt land and the impact that further growth would have on the infrastructure of the area.

Q4: Dunton Garden proposal.

Q5: No.

Q6: Brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Road, rail and public amenities.

see attached

My principle concern with this proposal is with the additional strains on infrastructure, which to be frank, I fail to see being addressed other than in the most ridiculous spin.
Over the past 10 years I have see our infrastructure deteriorate as it overloads. This will only get worse as the poplulation increases. As such, please respond to the following:
* Please confirm exactly how public transport will improve to accommodate the needs of commuters - e.g. will the platforms at Brentood station be extended so as to accommodate longer trains? You mention "more frequent" trains. Such services are already frequent, but they are overcrowded.
* I recently had to wait 3 weeks for a doctor's appointment, whereas 10 years ago I could see a doctor in a couple of days or so. What specific consideration is being afforded to new surgeries, A&E and other appropriate heathcare facilities? What is the Political Risk to any such healthcare investment given the forthcoming General Election?
* Given the problems that Basildon Council had with the Crays Hill Travellers Site, why does Brentwood Council feel obliged to establish a similar site within our borough?
* Why is the Council is being seemingly bullied into accepting the addition of 5,500 homes, which could mean >20,000 citizens arriving in the Borough, when there are large brownfield sites in the immediate surrounds of London (e.g. the Dagenham Ford site) that can easily be developed.
* What is the cost benefit for existing residents, especially with regard to Council Tax?
* Has consideration been afforded to the fact that we may actually like wide open spaces (including Greenbelt land), and believe it MUST be protected?
I will be objecting to all aspects of this proposal, unless a satisfactory explanation is given to my points above.

Thank you for your swift response. In addition, I have certain other observations:

The addition of so many homes will require additional investment in the emergency services, i.e. Police, Fire and Ambulance. What provision is being made to ensure that such a dramatic increase in population (perhaps 25-30% based on the current population estimated at 71,000) can be policed and served adequately? Crime would be a particular concern especially with the proposal for Gypsy/Travellers sites within the Borough. What steps will be taken to ensure that such Gypsies/Travellers pay Council Tax?

With regard to the problem of parking in the town centre, what provision is being made to ensure that an additional proportion of cars can actually park in what is an already inadequately provisioned town centre? The council has a poor track record with regard to road repairs (e.g. pot holes). How will roads structurally cope with such an influx of vehicles?

Please note that these and my previous points / observations apply to all aspects of this planning process including, but not limited to, the Dunton Garden Suburb plan.

Brentwood has plenty of public open space. More places that protect our vanishing wildlife are needed and better measures to protect SSSIs.

I understand that you and your fellow councillors together with senior officers are in the process of reviewing the Borough's Local Plan.

You have invited residents to contribute to this consultation process which I know is much appreciated by my fellow residents.

As you will know all we have by way of Public Open Space here in Shenfield is the Courage's playing field, which during the summer months is taken over most weekends by Shenfield Cricket club leaving our children and grandchildren with a very small play area.

Shenfield has a serious lack of Public open space, so, when your officers are considering their plans, can residents in Shenfield be taken into consideration and serious thought given to expanding what little space we have by extending the Courage's playing fields. This will alleviate the existing pressure and address any further shortfall if you are minded to allow substantial residential development to proceed.

see attached

biodiversity, ecological values and green corridors should also be considered as part of the document. Even though land is in a designated green belt and a vital part of the character of the landscape agricultural land for example would have less ecological value than ancient woodland. I would also say that some brownfield sites also have more ecological value than agricultural land.
With regards to heritage i feel the villages should be encouraged to develop their own design guidelines to ensure that development is in keeping with the character of conservation areas and the village vernacular. Too much development is occurring as infill or replacing smaller buildings which is out of scale or using inappropriate materials. Local communities, as stated in the NPPF, should have more say in the type of development occurring in their neighborhoods.

No the open farm land is accessible to the public and hence no additional space is required.

no it is farmland

Living within the town centre there is limited opportunity for additional space and further development will only erode the heritage assets within the area

Adequate open space provision, although mostly agricultural land, but if housing developments were undertaken, this would obviously change the present situation.

The open space facilities are provided by the community.

Any housing is LOSS of countryside. The opening spaces argument is entirely false.

There is good provision of open space, but the Hutton Recreation Area should be better maintained.

Unsure as to meaning of 'open space', map highlights examples but no explanation.

West Horndon currently has a small community park. Its enhancement of facilities and access should be integral to any potential future development within the village and also Duntion Garden Suburb if/when that development goes ahead.

There are few opportunities for more open space within Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing and the majority of that existing is managed by the parishes (Seymour Field / Transport Meadow excepted). I do note that some of the current open space land in Mountnessing at the Water Meadows is proposed for development?!. More use could be made of the Anglo-European School's playing fields across the A12.

see attached

Linking the farm land and bluebell woods around Ingrave and Herongate with Thorndon Country Park using better footpaths and cycle paths and maps would promote better use of this unique area.

Our Villages share a single playing field. It is a vital community asset. There is unfortunately no space for further open spaces available. However, a limiting factor in the use of the Village Playing Field during the winter months, is the extremely poor drainage of the field.

Yet another infrastructure issue that we have no money for. However, we do have a bottomless pit of avaricious would be developers queuing to make it worse.

My area is well catered for with regards to open space provision. There are opportunities for more but I would say these are not required at present as provision is about right. Current open space provision should not be sacrificed for development.

Bearing in mind I live in Ingrave your proposal plans show development of my surrounding greenbelt

West Horndon has a small community park but this could be enhanced both from a facilities and access perspective

The many green areas across the Borough are something we must be proud of and they must be defended for our residents' sport and leisure needs.

see attached

There is a reasonable amount of open space within reasonable walking distance; what is vital is that it be preserved. Any erosion of the greenbelt sets a dangerous precedent.