All the infrastructure needs identified are absolutely essential and must be fully addressed
before development is planned. There can be no question of prioritising to the detriment of any one
element of the required infrastructure.

see attached

see attached

Q1: No - Do not agree that the area north of Brentwood should be considered due to lack of infrastructure in roads and the type of land predominant in the area i.e. woodland, agriculture.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - As question 1, I do not believe the area north of Brentwood is suitable for any large scale development.

Q4: Agree that the A127 corridor offers the best solution and the Dunton Garden Suburb (200) is the best site.

Q5: Yes - Yes, but some sites are more suitable than others. For example the area 034 Officers Meadow could be suitable.

Q6: Priority must be to use brownfield sites. Villages should retain their own identities and not become just one mass of housing.

Q7: Yes - Traffic congestion would be a real concern around the villages as the country lanes are already becoming more dangerous for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders.

Q8: Yes

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

Q11:
Houses: 2
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: Correct balance needed between green infrastructure and any new development.

Health care

Q1: No - I do not agree with the North of the Borough Option. Substantial building would not be sustainable. Country lanes have to be used to access A414 and M11, causing much erosion. The bus service is poor and doesn't run after early evening and is infrequent with regard to Kelvedon Hatch. Although there is a newly built Doctors Surgery, there are only 4 doctors, and an increase in the population would mean even longer waiting times. The local primary school is only small and I would imagine it would have trouble accommodating a significant number of new pupils. It is also important for the villages to maintain their own identity and not merge into an urban sprawl, which could happen if Green Belt on the edge of villages is used for housing.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - 201. Environmentally this would cause noise and light pollution. Various wildlife live and feed in this field including bats, owls and other birdlife i.e. sparrow hawks, green woodpeckers and thrushes and starlings, all in decline. The corridor of land is important for wildlife and I believe on this agricultural greenbelt would be detrimental. If this site were to be developed it would increase the size of the village by almost half again, which would be unsustainable.
204. I believe this site would also be detrimental to the village, as again a large development would be unsustainable and change the character of the village.
217. This is an area used by villagers for dog walking, picnics and general recreation. If this were developed it would deprive the village of a much needed amenity.

Q4: I think the Dunton Garden Suburb would be a good option especially as it could provide funding for A127 improvements.

Q5: Yes

Q6: It would be better to develop brownfield sites.

Q7: Yes

Q8: Yes

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

Q11:
Houses: 2
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: Green infrastructure should be as important as all the others, to maintain a healthy society both physically and psychologically.

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 - I agree that the 3 areas should be looked at from a case by case scenario. You cannot compare the more rural areas to the north of the Borough with the A12 and A127 corridors.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - I feel it is unacceptable and wrong that you would consider building to the north of the Borough. We should be preserving natural landscape and local villages not making them into small towns.

Q4: West Horndon.

Q5: No - There is already too much traffic and the urban areas are big enough.

Q6: Absolutely not, these villages are all that is quintessentially English. If you develop on these sites you may as well concrete over the whole country.

Q7: Yes - The more narrow country lanes around the north of the Borough are already used by large commercial trucks that are too big for the roads. More traffic would cause accidents and traffic.

Q8: I agree with this but the traffic into Brentwood is already so bad that I can see why out of town shopping is growing.

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: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: No - I don't believe you have considered the infrastructure issues around the north of the Borough. The current infrastructure is adequate for the number of properties and people who live in the villages. It will not be sufficient if there were more people and homes.

Q13: Would it not be possible to use the money on immigration and remove those who should not be in this country and use their homes for those who deserve it rather than have to keep building new homes?

In short, Blackmore is a historic, medieval, picturesque village that must retain its current status. I live on the village green and every weekend see visitors who come to marvel at how pretty and unique Blackmore is. I speak with these visitors and they come to the village because it is different from al the local areas. If you build 130 new homes and add around 600 new people, Blackmore will be very different and not for the better.

In addition, the narrow country lanes around Blackmore are not wide enough for large trucks. I have already lost one wing mirror so I imagine the vehicles required for any proposed build would also raise problems with residents and traffic.

see attached

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.

Q5: No - The A127 is much less used and still under the Brentwood Borough Council. It is also closer to Basildon which is better suited to accept hundreds of new families.

Q6: Brownfield sites would be more suitable. The facilities in Brentwood are already at breaking point on a Saturday as it is.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - Brentwood needs to be updated. Car parking, better shops and more family based business in the evenings. Bowling, cinema, swimming before any further homes are built.

Q12: No - Better across to the A12. Brook Street is grid locked every evening and on Saturdays. A third Brentwood access point to the A12 would work maybe off a Brownfield site.

Q13: Brentwood town first. Strategic road networks next then more houses.

Other comments: If the person who had photocopied the form had used double sided photocopying I would have answered the rest of the questions. This does not portray Brentwood Borough Council in a professional way.

see attached

see attached

see attached

improved transport connections between rural and urban areas
improved facilities and safeguarding of existing facilities for local communities
the identification and protection of important habitats, wildlife corridors, trees and hedgerows as part of the green infrastructure

Upgrade A127and C2C links

Green infrastructure should be prioritised. This borough has a chance to embrace and fully utilise its 89% of greenbelt land as an environmental and recreational asset. We should cherish the environment that previous generations have provided us and ensure we pass it onto future generations in the same, or better, state.

All of the above but particular support for healthcare as the general population of the area is ageing.

Ensuring adequate schools, doctors, public transport. At present can take one month to get doctors appointment and without own transport, public transport is in adequate to meet needs of current residents.

Links to the main rail stations and suitable, affordable parking.

All the issues raised need to be addressed prior to any new developments being undertaken.

Education, Health and Transport have equal top weight.

Repairing existing roads, more consistent rail network.

As Stated above in Q12, a priority that there be adequate infrastructure improvements. (This specifically refers to Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing)
1) Water/ Sewerage provision ( including additional pond as stated by Anglian Water)
2) An additional Doctor's Surgery
3) Additional Infant/Junior School Facilities ( So why build houses on the land next to the Mountnessing Junior School?)
4) Electricity
6) A mobile telephone network that works through all of the ward
5) Transport

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.

Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities, the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space, community facilities, flood relief). Failure to provide any one elment of this infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both existing resident, and the new development. Assuch, whilst there may be priorities in areas where developmentis expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure the development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Infrastructure especially education and medical need to keep up with current and future population growth.

Also transportation, consideration should be given to encouraging more buses that can link outlying areas and with Cross Rail, also reducing the use of private transport.

School places need more consideration