See attached representation.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Because of my very long association with Hutton Preservation Society I have been asked by its secretary (there is no chairman at present) to give our views on this subject.

As longtime members of CPRE and the Metropolitan Green Belt we have fought strenuously over the years to keep this area of Hutton, with its conservation village, without undue building. We do recognise, however, the difficulties the Borough is under, we really have considered the matter impartially.

If Brentwood and Basildon can come to proper agreement, of the three difficult categories this Society feels that of the Dunton Garden Suburb must be the best. It presents so much the better facilities, despite the sad reduction in the Green Belt. There would be opportunity for a sustainable community. In our area we cannot see this happening without drastic change.

1) What prospect has ECC for upgrading the A129 say in the next decade? At times it is infinitely overcrowded, flooded in this area in three places and a source of several accidents. It cannot support heavy construction lorries and nor can the surrounding country lanes. Which are already suffering hugely? A dual carriageway?

2) Much of the suggested farmland has received from DEFRA considerable tax payers money in the form of single farm payments. This could be substantial consideration. It is by no means a huge brownfield site.

3) Like, sadly much of the borough, we have many historical associations, Roman coins, Saxon broaches, Tudor brick kiln and so on are all found along Church Lane, a very early settlement. It is a constant joy to its many walker as this Society has frequently been told. It has poor communal facilities however, no GPs, no immediate state schools, no late evening buses, no easy train service. Transport would need total revision (in this of course I refer only to the Hutton Preservation area). Also this too, this committee felt would apply to the scrubland and scenic villages of your third option, the most difficult and complex of them all.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to take part in the consultation. We have always been grateful to the Council for helping us to uphold the Green Belt over the years.

Consultation Questionnaire:

Q1: Yes - In a difficult situation they are the best choice.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Sadly ECC will have a restricted budget for many years. Can we manage transport difficulties to heavy materials needed for growth without maximum disturbance?

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes - I think needs must, but with care and reluctance.

Q6: Most definitely brownfield sites, even within the Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - With reservation and common sense.

Q9: No - We are very fortunate and have open space and it is much used.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Air Quality: 5

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

Q12: Yes - This seems to me to be an exceedingly comprehensive review of a very complex subject. Most of us dislike change but the population pressures on this area and political influence have forced it on us.

Q13: Alas, road structure in my corridor at least coupled with transport in general of which Crossrail is going to be a future unknown entity, both good and bad. And health facilities of all kinds are already a problem with an already exploding population.

Because of my very long association with Hutton Preservation Society I have been asked by its secretary (there is no chairman at present) to give our views on this subject.

As longtime members of CPRE and the Metropolitan Green Belt we have fought strenuously over the years to keep this area of Hutton, with its conservation village, without undue building. We do recognise, however, the difficulties the Borough is under, we really have considered the matter impartially.

If Brentwood and Basildon can come to proper agreement, of the three difficult categories this Society feels that of the Dunton Garden Suburb must be the best. It presents so much the better facilities, despite the sad reduction in the Green Belt. There would be opportunity for a sustainable community. In our area we cannot see this happening without drastic change.

1) What prospect has ECC for upgrading the A129 say in the next decade? At times it is infinitely overcrowded, flooded in this area in three places and a source of several accidents. It cannot support heavy construction lorries and nor can the surrounding country lanes. Which are already suffering hugely? A dual carriageway?

2) Much of the suggested farmland has received from DEFRA considerable tax payers money in the form of single farm payments. This could be substantial consideration. It is by no means a huge brownfield site.

3) Like, sadly much of the borough, we have many historical associations, Roman coins, Saxon broaches, Tudor brick kiln and so on are all found along Church Lane, a very early settlement. It is a constant joy to its many walker as this Society has frequently been told. It has poor communal facilities however, no GPs, no immediate state schools, no late evening buses, no easy train service. Transport would need total revision (in this of course I refer only to the Hutton Preservation area). Also this too, this committee felt would apply to the scrubland and scenic villages of your third option, the most difficult and complex of them all.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to take part in the consultation. We have always been grateful to the Council for helping us to uphold the Green Belt over the years.

Consultation Questionnaire:

Q1: Yes - In a difficult situation they are the best choice.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Sadly ECC will have a restricted budget for many years. Can we manage transport difficulties to heavy materials needed for growth without maximum disturbance?

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes - I think needs must, but with care and reluctance.

Q6: Most definitely brownfield sites, even within the Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - With reservation and common sense.

Q9: No - We are very fortunate and have open space and it is much used.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Air Quality: 5

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

Q12: Yes - This seems to me to be an exceedingly comprehensive review of a very complex subject. Most of us dislike change but the population pressures on this area and political influence have forced it on us.

Q13: Alas, road structure in my corridor at least coupled with transport in general of which Crossrail is going to be a future unknown entity, both good and bad. And health facilities of all kinds are already a problem with an already exploding population.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Q1: Generally yes, considering the task Brentwood Council is charged with. I think it is generally well thought out.

Q2: Yes, although transport and access would need to be carefully thought through. If every proposed development has at least one car - the problems speak for themselves.

Q3: No.

[Q3 site 076]: I am directly adjacent to a proposed development site (076). I have lived there since 1967. Had the objections lodged at the time been sustained I would have been deprived of what I consider to be an idyllic life and upbringing. I don't see why other people shouldn't have a crack at it also. As stated, I am more concerned with what would be built and for whom, the type of development and access than the actual building on Green Belt itself.

Q4: A127 corridor. I think this area would benefit most.

Q5: Yes, as time passes all areas need to expand slightly or risk becoming stale. I always think that new buildings - carefully planned mind, can hep to revitalise areas. Most villages are only pleasant to live in because they have been allowed to expand.

Q6: No, brownfield is always preferable, but I have no problem with greenfield. I'm always more concerned with what is actually being built, and for whom, rather than the type of site.

Q7: No thoughts on this.

Q8: No, not necessarily. Satellite areas with improved facilities/retail etc will also benefit the town centre.

Q9: Blackmore is largely open space - make of it what you will.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
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: 3

Q12: There are more than likely other issues but generally I think it is a well proposed plan.

Q13: Roads and transport links.

see attached.

see attached

Q1: Yes. My main concern is that by allowing landowners of Green Belt sites to put forward their land for inclusion in the Plan, it will put a blight on households that border their land.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Don't agree to the following sites in the Plan:
028 A/B/C Land East of Running Waters, Brentwood
067 A/B Salmonds Farm, Salmonds Grove, Ingrave
146 Land adjacent to Hillcrest Nursery
192 Heron Hall, Herongate
183 Former sewage pumping station, Ingrave Hall, Ingrave

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: Don't know.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Schools, healthcare.

Q1: Yes. I am concerned that by allowing landowners of Green Belt sites to put forward their land for inclusion in the Plan, it will put a blight on properties that border their land.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Don't agree to the following sites in the Plan:
028 A/B/C Land East of Running Waters, Brentwood
067 A/B Salmonds Farm, Salmonds Grove, Ingrave
146 Land adjacent to Hillcrest Nursery
192 Heron Hall, Herongate
183 Former sewage pumping station, Ingrave Hall, Ingrave

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: Don't know.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Schools, healthcare.

Q1: Yes. I understand the need for growth, but any considered areas must take local resident views into account. Infrastructure must be one of the most important points, and what impact will development bring.

Q2: Yes. Any Local Plan must take all aspects into account with all residents views taken into account to have a good outcome.

Q3: Yes. When reading the consultations regarding the Brentwood Strategic Growth Options, it would appear to me that the most suitable options would be the Dunton Garden Suburb as the existing travel links are already in place.

Q4: As stated above [see Rep ID 11719] Dunton Garden Suburb would be most suitable. Very good travel links, which would help travel.

Q5: Yes. Only after all other options have been considered.

Q6: Brownfield sites would be better.

Q7: Yes. That's why Dunton Garden is a good plan.

Q8: Yes. The Town Centre should remain sustainable and improvements made.

Q9: No. Other than farmland there is not much open space left, that would be suitable.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Suitable housing with good transport links.

Q1: Yes. All areas have separate issues to be considered.

Q2: Yes. 1) Social housing would be beneficial to allow growth in the villages, in particular brownfield sites. 2) A new bypass is essential to ensure increased traffic is diverted and not interrupt progress in the Town Centre. 3) This area offers the best option for housing and road networks.

Q3: Yes. Housing in these areas should be sympathetic to the local neighbourhoods.

Q4: The A127 Corridor offers the best opportunities for growth and development.

Q5: No. There appears to be enough scope for development alone for housing or new business interests to bring employment growth into the area.

Q6: No. In an ideal world it would be preferable to develop brownfield sites before intruding onto greenfield sites.

Q7: Yes. It is imperative that new sites sit in isolation and are served by separate networks in order not to intrude into housing development.

Q8: Yes. It is important that a Town Centre First approach is taken to improve retail development in order to promote growth in employment.

Q9: No this area is semi rural, there are two large playing fields with children's play areas and one small field with children's playground. To provide further open spaces would mean intrusion into the Green Belt areas.

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

Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Other - Public Footpaths: 4

Q12: Yes. New and much improved broadband connection would be a considerable asset.

Q13: This would be expensive (any figure, not known) but necessary.

Q1: No. All areas with unused properties should be used first.

Q2: No to Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q3: Yes. Building on industrial estate will improve village.

Q4: Not on Green Belt.

Q5: Only if on brownfield sites.

Q6: Only brownfield sites.

Q7: No. A127 has already too much traffic on it.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 2
Tranquility: 1

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

Q12: Yes. The flooding resultant of the building on fenland (flood plain).

Q13: Adequate bus services.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes. Doddinghurst does not have the infrastructure to support further development. Small school, shop car park already overflowing, narrow twisting roads in and out of village. The suggested development would substantially dilute the quality of life in this rural community.

Q5: No.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be given priority.

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

Q12: No.

Q13: To build new homes adjacent to easily accessible amenities such as shops and restaurants.

Q1: Yes. Splitting the Borough into three areas appears to make sense due to the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No. Road and rail infrastructure is overstretched. A127 at peak times is at a standstill and c2c is packed at peak times with no seats available, which will only get worse. Flood risk has not been assessed, we have flooding in Thorndon Avenue and roads around Dunton often flooded on slip road.

Q3: Yes. 020 and 021 industrial estates in West Horndon are brownfield sites and in my opinion if we have to have extra housing, this would be the preferred option, rather than Green Belt land. But there would need to have schools, doctors and public transport to satisfy demand.

Q4: Site 200 (Dunton Garden Suburb) is preferred to other sites as it would give a large number of housing in one location, although it would put a strain on surrounding road and rail networks.

Q5: Yes. Suitable sites should be included in the A12 Corridor to spread the impact on one area.

Q6: Where there are suitable brownfield sites these should be developed first as in West Horndon Industrial Park as it provides housing in a good location without damaging Green Belt land.

Q7: Yes. To relocate employment sites such as West Horndon Industrial Park it is important that it is within the A12 Corridor with good access to major road networks but ideally with access to public transport.

Q8: Yes. There does need to be local shops for villages but focus needs to be on Town Centres.

Q9: Yes. The park in Cadogan Avenue in West Horndon could be enhanced and expanded. If they build the Dunton Garden Suburb they could put in park areas.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
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: Yes. If the Dunton Garden Suburb gets the go ahead it would need a train station, otherwise the residents would drive to neighbouring stations at West Horndon or Laindon which would cause chaos at peak times, and Laindon would not have enough allocated parking in station car parks, and there would need to be better bus services.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed in A127 Corridor it would need to be evenly spread between education, transport, healthcare, community facilities and green space.

See attached.

See attached

Q1: Yes. The character of the areas is completely different.

Q2: No. A127 at full capacity - widening could cause massive problems for local residents. Flooding, already a recurring problem, does not seem to have been addressed. Open fenland, with its wildlife and beauty, is greatly valued by residents of West Horndon.

Q3: Site 200 [Entire Land East of A128, south of A127] massively preferred to 037 [A/B/C - Land West of Thorndon Avenue, West Horndon], 038 [A/B - Land East of Thorndon Avenue, West Horndon], and 126 [Land East of West Horndon, South of Station Road].
Brownfield sites should be used for future building before exploiting greenfield sites.
New, appropriate infrastructure should be carefully planned before any building takes place.
My concern is that West Horndon will no longer be a village, its character treasured by local residents.

Q4: Site 200 has the greater potential to afford future benefit for the village of West Horndon.
Development unsuitable in sites 037 A,B,C [Land West of Thorndon Avenue, West Horndon] and 038 A,B [Land East of Thorndon Avenue, West Horndon] which are prone to becoming water logged - please refer to paragraph 100 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Q5: Yes. Sustainable development in the Borough of Brentwood should be sought in all areas of the Borough, and especially along the A12 Corridor, to address the projected level of housing needs.

Q6: Brownfield sites are preferable for development of housing. Greenfield sites should only be used when distinct levels of benefit to the existing area are proved.

Q7: Yes. Employment opportunities are a must, and accessible by road, rail and public transport (including buses).

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Not sure.

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

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

Q12: Yes. Travel links to surrounding areas/communities.

Q13: An holistic infrastructure Plan must be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes. A12 and A127 should be promoted.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes. It is not appropriate to develop sites 76 [Land south of Redrose Lane, north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore], 77 [Land south of Redrose Lane, north of Woollard Way, Blackmore], 199 [Land to the East of Ingatestone Road, Blackmore], 202 [Land to the South of Blackmore, off Blackmore Road] and 203 [Land to the West of Blackmore, off Blackmore Road] as this is a conservation area and within the Green Belt.

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Brownfield sites must be developed in preference to green sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. Promote Town Centres as this reduces traffic.

Q9: No.

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

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3
Other - Historic Buildings including Church: 2

Q12: No.

Q13: Health provision.

See attached