See attached.

See attached

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: No.

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

Q11:
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Better roads and crossings.

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.

see attached

see attached

See attached.

Q1: Yes - Many areas are not properly finalised. See P6 of the consultation document where much information is stated as being "forthcoming". Therefore proper comment cannot be made on these at this stage.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Dunton Garden Suburb should be supported to relieve housing pressure on Brentwood. Therefore site close to the A127 seem appropriate to be chosen for development.

Q4: 037A, 037B, 037C, 020, 021 and 200.

Q5: Yes - Providing proper and adequate access to the A12 is made. Otherwise Brentwood town centre will become more crowded.

Q6: No.

Q7: Yes - The highway network needs to be improved and properly maintained. This applies particularly to the rural roads which are currently breaking up at the edges because of big homes..

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

Q11:
Houses: 3
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 - The roads in the area in which I live are inadequate and would be more so with further development, maintenance is very poor on rural roads with edges breaking down and frequent pot holes. These matters should be resolved before more development.

Q13: Roads - upgrading and maintenance.
Drainage - both surface water and sewage disposal.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Blackmore just has not got the facilities to accommodate 100 houses with families i.e. only got a small Primary School, one small store, likely to lose Post Office.

Q4: Dunton.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Both. Greenfield sites should not spoil villages and their amenities.

Q7: No.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes.

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

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

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Roads, schools, shops.

See attached.

See attached

see attached

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - The use of brownfield sites with good local amenities within areas having good local transport to areas that provide employment opportunities is more desirable than greenfield sites with limited amenities and require private transport on country lanes to places of work and schooling.

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: No.

Q6: No to both but if an option is needed then brownfield site.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

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

Q12: Services such as sewage etc.

Q13: To improve the quality of life without adversely affecting the status quo.

See attached.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - I think you have highlighted the problems of each area very well. As a volunteer for Brentwood Community Transport, I know only too well about the transport problems in the north of the borough!

Q4: The most appropriate location for growth would seem to be the A127 corridor although judicious use of brownfield sites in the A12 corridor could be an option.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: I think that it is obviously better to develop brownfield sites but it might be necessary in some cases to use some greenfield sites, possibly where they overlap.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

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

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/Industrial buildings: 1
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Infrastructure: 2.5
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - I think you have prioritised all the main infrastructure issues.

Q13: The priorities for spending are as you list them in the consultation document i.e. Education, Healthcare, Transport, Community Facilities, Green Infrastructure.
You have a difficult balancing act providing homes for the future and protecting our lovely surroundings. Good Luck.

See attached.

Consultation Questionnaire see attached.

Email: Strategic Growth Options Consultation - incorrectly structured question

Hi

I am in the process of completing the Strategic Growth Options consultation questionnaire and an unable to proceed because of what I consider a serious structural flaw in Q6.

Q6 reads: In order to provide for local needs is in preferable to greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the green belt)?

A Yes or No answer is required (with the option to comment).

However if the answers to Q6 are to be interpreted statistically, it is clearly not possible to answer a multiple choice question with a yes/no answer. Any qualification in the comment box renders analysis impossible.

This elementary error renders one of the most important questions raised in the consultation meaningless. I cannot believe that such a fundamental mistake in questionnaire construction can have been made on a key issue.

I would regard any answer to this question as invalid.

I would be interested to hear your comments as a matter of urgency.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - A127 corridor provides access to major roads, A127, A128, M25. Development on other sites would cause major road access problems.

Q4: Option 2 and development east and west of Horndon.

Q5: No - Not if this incorporates Hutton, where increase in road access to west is limited to minor roads, reduced access to walks, woods and ancient sites.

Q6: Greenfield sites on the edges of villages use key to the quality of living in these areas. Development in these areas should be avoided at all costs.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No - Not unless the social benefits of Green Belt are involved/removed.

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

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

Q12: No - Provide greater attention to the effect of reducing Green Belt, the major attraction of living in Brentwood.

Q13:
1. Early development of all brownfield sites excluding Green Belt.
2. Town Centre development.
3. Prioritise joint plan with Basildon - Dunton.
4. Utilise scrubland on south of A127.

See attached.

The "North of the Borough" area is made up of mostly villages and rural areas where further development would be detrimental to the character of the area.

Also, most of the villages do not have enough spare capacity in terms of roads, schools, GPs etc to support additional housing.

And the majority of this part of the Borough s Green Belt where development should not be permited.

[Email Submission - See attached]