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.

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.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: No.

Q2: No.

Q3: No.

Q4: ?

Q5: No.

Q6: Should be left as Green Belt.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

Q11: ?

Q12: No.

Q13: ?

Q1: No. I object to any building on the current Green Belt as I believe it is not needed, and any building should be with regard to the current Brentwood population.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes. All brownfield sites are acceptable to build upon although Green Belt areas are not appropriate for construction.

Q4: Housing estates should not be built near or around the A127 because there is already large amounts of congestion and the additional commuters would add to the problem.

Q5: Only on appropriate areas such as brownfield sites. Not Green Belt.

Q6: The amount of houses proposed to be built is far too high and most are intended for residence outside Brentwood so there is no need to build on the Green Belt for 'local needs'.

Q7: No. There is no need to move the industrial estate away from West Horndon and away from public transport (trains, buses). The roads are already congested.

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

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

Q12: No. I think there are more important issues that should be looked upon before building new housing such as hospitals, doctors, congestion, public transport, school, police and fire department.

Q13: The major priority should be on providing public transport and protecting brownfield sites by turning them into protected Green Belt areas around Brentwood.

Q1: I strongly disagree with these proposals.

Q2: No. New houses needed but not this many.

Q3: Yes, not on Green Belt.

Q4: Warley, near Holly Trees.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Brownfield only.

Q7: No.

Q8: No.

Q9: No. No brownfield here. Many elsewhere.

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

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

Q12: Drainage.

Q13: Roads. Maintaining housing, farmland, forests/trees.

Q1: No - It is important that Brentwood remains separate from London and the villages from Brentwood.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes - Important farmland.

Q4: Not given at all.

Q6: Yes so long as they do not swamp us.

Q7: No - One does not follow from the other.

Q8: Yes - I would encourage the building of homes close to the High Street.

Q9: No - We have plenty and room for development within the village.

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

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

Q12: Brentwood has expanded massively since the war, Essex has also done more than its share.

Q1: All should be kept to a minimum.

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

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No developing anywhere.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: 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: There is already far too many kids being knocked down because of the amount of cars using Brentwood.

Q1: No.

Q2: Yes.

Q4: None as the A127 and A128 is already too busy and the road is closed too often due to accidents.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Green Belt shouldn't be used.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
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: Too many cars already using Brentwood Road with too many kids being knocked over due to too many cars speeding along this road.

See attached.

See attached document

See attached.

See attached

See attached

See attached

Q1: No.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Minimise urban sprawl.

Q4: A127 growth corridor impacts on traffic using Brentwood Road from A127 to the town.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: 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: Far too much traffic on A128, A127 Brentwood Road. Too many cars using these roads.

Q1: As long as this is kept to a minimum.

Q4: None. A127 and A128 is already too busy.

Q5: No.

Q6: None of Green Belt used be used.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
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: Already there is far too much traffic alone Brentwood between the A128 and Brentwood town.

Q1: No - We should only be using brownfield sites.

Q2: No - Not applicable.

Q3: No - N/A

Q5: No - There are enough brownfield sites and sites that builders and developers own and are sitting on.

Q6: Only brownfield sites.

Q7: No.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4
Other - No overdevelopment: 5

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 2

Q12: Doctors appointments, parking, policing, schooling all pushed to the limit.

Q13: All the above.

See attached.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Site ref 076 & 077 to much for village, school already full.

Q4: Yes.

Q5: Yes - Only brownfield sites.

Q6: Only brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13:
1. Using appropriate methods to remove unauthorised Traveller Sites.
2. Acquire as many unused/ empty houses. In Blackmore there are at least 6 empty houses.

Q1: No.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - The villages within the north of the borough i.e. Doddinghurst, should be left to retain its village status, where no new sites should be built.

Q4: A127 corridor.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No. Why should these pretty villages be exploited when alternative sites are available with better infrastructure and services are available i.e. A127 corridor.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - What is best for the Town and its residents must come first. Not overdeveloped by multi national companies. i.e. Tesco, Waitrose etc.

Q9: No - New builds would totally destroy the landscape and countryside of our village which is so important to families and the elderly in our village.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 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: 3

Q12: Yes - The tranquillity and natural beauty of the villages which is why residents love the "way of life".

Q13: Repair and renewal of road infrastructures around the fringes of Brentwood. Pot holes etc. Street lighting. CCTV introduction. Increased police visibility.

See attached

Q1: No - I consider one of the main points was not allowing building on Green Belt land which will not be the case in Blackmore if this is agreed to.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes - Blackmore does not need further traffic, the school is already at full capacity and local lanes are already busy.

Q4: Definitely along the A127 corridor.

Q5: Yes - Only on a small scale.

Q6: Brownfield sites would be preferable to greenfield sites. Don't make our villages into towns no urban sprawl.

Q7: Yes - This makes sense, Blackmore is quite an isolated village with small lanes to and from.

Q8: Yes - To save our local shopping areas and not overdevelop out of town shops and centres that kill local towns, we don't want to end up as Kent is.

Q9: No - We have lovely open fields and woodland, please keep it that way.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Maintaining existing road to a good condition, education facilities.

Q1: No - Only in specific areas (contain). If villages continue to be built in/on they very quickly become towns spoiling infrastructure, wildlife habitat, increased noise levels etc.

Q4: Site 200 - The Dunton Garden Suburb. Great care would have to be taken re: the infrastructure, avoid flooding/access etc.

Q5: No - But must depend on the individual site.

Q6: This depends on the site BUT NOT in Green Belt bordering areas which include areas such as Stondon Massey, Blackmore, Doddinghurst etc.

Q7: No - Depends on the need for work, economic growth. Development should necessarily be because of highway network or other transport.

Q8: Yes - Villages and other rural communities must retain shops and post offices.

Q9: Yes - Agricultural land MUST be preservescome what may, public footpaths kept in good repair with easy access, lands such as those by Orchard Piece and Woolard Way converted into allotments and/or nature reserve.

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

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

Q12: Yes - Sort of but careful thought and consideration.

Q13: Road up keep, health provision - travel - blood tests, education, MUST maintain Green Belt and recreational facilities. See p31, section 6.9. Bus services (hence travel) must go to health providers/surgeries. Not everyone drives, older people like to retain independence therefore not relying on lifts all the time.

See attached

Q1: Yes - Gypsy and traveller sites should not be considered, initial illegality on Green Belt land should not be rewarded.

Q2: The infrastructure is incapable of supporting a lot of additional housing. Apart from roads, schools, doctors parking etc. There is a serious problem with sewage.

Q3: No - Overbuilding in the area. The sewage floods frequently (See Anglia Water compliant reference 50453314). It bubbled out many times in 2014 along footpath 37.

Q5: No - The Green Belt should be preserved at all costs.

Q6: Only brownfield.

Q7: Most people in Ingatestone commute to London.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Sewage (Q3)

Q13: Parking, sewage , doctors, schools.

Q1: Yes - I agree with expansion providing that priority is given to local residents or for whose people working in Brentwood area and want to move nearer their workplace and are of a small development type. I would not like to see a travellers encampment put in this area.

Q2: Yes - Some area could do with upgrading but only on a small scale as I feel the roads would need extensive planing to take lots of traffic.

Q3: Yes - There are many sites in this locality which seem to be businesses (scrap yard, car repairs etc) which have already encroached on supposedly Green Belt land it would be better to see decent housing built also there would not be such heavy traffic on the small lanes around this area.

Q4: All sites should have the capacity for growth providing on a small scale due to the area situation. Large scale developments would put a great strain on all roads around the A127 corridor.

Q5: Yes - Small sites would be better released on the edge of urban areas see Q3 for comment.

Q6: There are many sites which I would personally not consider Green Belt sites but due to their status were never allowed for development previously these could be used for small developments.

Q7: Yes - There would need to be upgrading on all areas in the area especially to be able to reach A127 or A12.

Q8: Retail development should remain in the Town Centre but not anymore food outlets including restaurants, bars, nightclubs lets give small businesses a chance.

Q9: In this area there are only small areas that in my opinion are not large enough to provide open space for parkland.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 1
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 1
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 1
Tranquility: 1
Other - Salvage Yards: 5

Q11:
Houses: 1
Commercial/Industrial buildings: 1
Farmland: 1
Woodland: 1
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 4
Infrastructure: 1
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 1
Other - Salvage Yards: 4

Q12: Yes - I would like to see the land in this area released for affordable housing at it is mainly plot land I would resist attempts to house travellers families legally or illegally.

Q13: Upgrading area that are a eyesore and would remove very large lorries from the small lanes that are not built to take this type of traffic.

Q1: Yes - I totally agree with expansion providing that priority is given to local residents and are of a small development.

Q2: Yes - This would be an on going situation when planning and development takes place in these areas and would have to be fine tuned as progress is made.

Q3: Yes - There are many sites in a locality which seem to be business (scrap yards) which have encroached on supposedly Green Belt land. It would be far more appropriate to see these areas cleared and decent housing provided.

Q4: I would only be able to comment on sites local to myself.

Q5: Yes - Any site that has the same situation as Q3 should be considered.

Q6: There are many sites which I would personally not consider are Green Belt sites but due to their status were never allowed for development previously.

Q7: Yes - Some local roads will obviously need to be upgraded.

Q8: Yes - Although I would like the Town Centre to remain the hub of the economy I feel we do not need anymore food outlets, restaurants, bars, nightclubs.

Q9: No - There is only plots of land not large enough to provide open space for parkland.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 1
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 1
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 1
Tranquility: 1
Other - Scrapyard: 5

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

Q12: Yes - I would like to see plot land locally used for small decent affordable houses for local residents. I would resist attempt to house travellers legally or illegally.

Q13: Upgrading areas that are a blight on the landscape which people here had to suffer for many many years.