Question 12
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10950
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Deborah Dicker
What happens to a small community when introducing a large amount of properties overloading any amenities that exist.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10964
Received: 11/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Joseph Curtis
Yes. You should really consider what the next/younger generation want.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10977
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: John Raeburn
Please consider our rural way of life and not overload our area.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 10989
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Gardner
Congestion 185 Rectory Chase. Could not take the level of traffic, proposed development would create, drainage is also very important.
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.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11002
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Alison Bowyer
Many and what if anything West Horndon can take. We are really only two roads!
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11019
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Roger Leftley
Yes.
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11029
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Ian Churley
Yes.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11041
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Hilary Sweeney
The main infrastructure issues have been considered within this document and should be given great importance to any development.
An area that has not been included is energy requirements and reduction in pollution due to an increase to car numbers. Good local public transport links are very important to reduce car usage.
The use of solar energy could also reduce energy requirements. This could be Solar car parks as in France. Shelter for cars is provided by the construction of solar car ports. These could also be linked to the provision of car charging point for electric cars.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11048
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Barbara May Offord
Minimal bus routes. Flood area. Open streams. Small roads and numerous parked cars. Unadopted, unmade road in front of 72, 74, 76 Peartree Lane.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11067
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Mrs. June Sykes
Yes.
See attached.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11096
Received: 10/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Stuart Lucas
No. The inclusion of villages for a large scale requirement seems illogical. My village seems to accommodate, just, it's present requirements. Transport is very poor, so why make it worse?
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11098
Received: 14/04/2015
Respondent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association
This is a yes and a no.
It is a well written report where you do acknowledge the main infrastructure issues. But, including villages for large scale development is not logical. Blackmore for example has a school which is full, the nearby doctors surgery is over-burdoned, and comminications are difficult (e.g. a bus only 3/4 time a day).
See attachement.
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11111
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr. Jack Thorpe
Traffic volumes on all local roads needs careful consideration. Also parking requirements for rail users.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11130
Received: 10/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Town
No. There should be an M12. Too many houses in rural areas = too much traffic = too much congestion + excess carbon emmissions.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11149
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs. Daphne Gilbert
Pressure on services, i.e. doctors etc.
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.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11164
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Jean Sibbald
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.
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.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11177
Received: 13/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Brenda Duncan
No.
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.
Object
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11207
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline MacDonald
No.
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.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11211
Received: 10/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Susan Dunn
Development must not increase the challenges to the borough infrastructure.
All of the road perspective's need to be taken into account, A127, A12 are joined by the A128 nothing has been mentioned about this road, this road is the link to brentwood and the main secondary schools what is going to be done about this. The bigger picture does need to be taken into account and not just about building homes to elevate pressure from goverments
see attached
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11226
Received: 13/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Robert Skingley
Yes - Main infrastructure issues considered.
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).
Support
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11249
Received: 13/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Christina Atkins
Yes.
Q1: No - Overall we agree but have reservation about option 5.
Q2: Yes.
Q3: Yes - Brownfield sites.
Q4: The Dunton Garden Suburb.
Q5: Yes.
Q6: No to greenfield, yes to brownfield sites.
Q7: Yes.
Q8: Yes.
Q9: No - Many people visit Blackmore Village because it has history and also retains its identity and charm as a 'small village'. It is imperative that Blackmore village is kept as it is for future generations to enjoy. This village is surrounded by farmland and is not a continuation of Doddinghurst and this is how it should remain. Although some building has taken place over the last few years most villagers think that this is now enough!
Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 4
Q12: Yes.
Q13: Sheltered housing for the elderly must be considered.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11269
Received: 13/02/2015
Respondent: Denis Nobbs
Schools - intake for our two schools is large, and so are classroom numbers; Doctor; Roads - poorly maintained; Telecommunications; Water, sewerage and electrical grids also need discussing.
Living in the countryside has responsibility. We need to be sensible to our environment and keep our green spaces clean, natural and enjoyable.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11274
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mr James Beenham
I feel that in the area of Kelvedon Hatch,especially School Road, the infastructure, including roads, parking, sewerage/drains, school places etc. is not in place to be able to cope with an influx of extra housing and families
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11289
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mr James Beenham
My children are going to have their safety jeopardised when, in a few years they cannot play out in the street if their cul de sac becomes a through road. This was a major reason why we moved into the street and now the council seems to want to change the rules as they see fit.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11302
Received: 16/02/2015
Respondent: Mrs Lynda Hills
Yes. The need to expand facilities at the Brentwood Community Hospital.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11315
Received: 16/04/2015
Respondent: Mr W P Wix
Yes - Quality of life.
See attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11355
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Lukas Warren
Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure.
Transport - Focus is on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. The scale of potential development within the A127 (Brentwood, Basildon and beyond) requires a transport strategy that considers the impact on the Fenchurch Street railway line. There also needs to be consideration on the links between Dunton Garden Suburb and the surrounding area including public transport and road use particularly the A128.
There are few details on education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure requirements.
Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation.
See attached representation.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11362
Received: 17/02/2015
Respondent: MRS JANE MILES
There is no evidence that proposed areas have been investigated fully. There has been no direct consultation with infrastructure providers (eg. schools) either by the Borough or the Parish.
As a member of the local school's governing board we find this extremely concerning as we would struggle to take many more pupils, plus the strain on the roads causes surface problems, and is dangerous for the children.
The Green Belt seems to be being too casually considered as an option when it is a protected space, it should be a last resort, if used at all.
see attached
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11381
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr Anthony Warren
Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure.
Transport - Focus is on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. The scale of potential development within the A127 (Brentwood, Basildon and beyond) requires a transport strategy that considers the impact on the Fenchurch Street railway line. There also needs to be consideration on the links between Dunton Garden Suburb and the surrounding area including public transport and road use particularly the A128.
There are few details on education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure requirements.
Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation.
See attached representation.
Comment
Strategic Growth Options
Representation ID: 11393
Received: 16/04/2015
Respondent: David and Lesley Peterson
Plans other authorities along the A127 corridor or south of the Borough may have that will impact on the area in terms of urbanisation/traffic/travel.
See attached