Dear Sir or Madam
Brentwood Strategic Growth Options Consultation (January 2015)
Thank you for your letter dated 5 January consulting English Heritage on the
above document. We would like to make the following comments
Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas for the purposes of
considering approaches to growth?
We do not have a strong view on the division of the borough into three broad
areas, which we recognise is to help consider growth options. As paragraph
2.13 notes, each of the areas should not be considered in isolation. In the
case of the historic environment, specific heritage assets might be shared
between more than one area (e.g. Thorndon Hall Registered Park and
Garden), and so could be impacted on by growth proposals in each area.
Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?
We broadly agree with the issues raised for each area in paragraphs 2.14 to
2.19. The historic environment forms an important part of the issues and
options for each area in terms of where to potentially locate new development.
This includes designated heritage assets but also non-designated assets such
as sites of archaeological interest. We would expect proper assessment of the
historic environment and potential impacts when making decisions about
where to locate development.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular
sites?
Due to time and resource constraints we have not been able to assess every
site in great detail. Our comments on the sites have been based mainly on
desk-top analysis, and we have not been able to judge the potential impacts
more accurately on the ground. Even with the strategic sites, we have only
been able to carry out rapid site visits in limited cases and have not had the
opportunity to ascertain precise impacts. We have focussed on those sites
with the potential for the greatest historic environment impact. This does not mean there are no issues with any other site and we reserve the right to
comment further on any site as and when proposals develop.
Please note that we have not considered areas of archaeological interest
beyond scheduled monuments in most cases, nor have we looked at historic
landscape issues beyond registered historic parks & gardens. However,
wider archaeological and landscape impacts are important considerations and
need to be factored into site assessment. The possible cumulative impact of
a number of site allocations in one location could cause significant harm to the
historic environment. Advice from conservation and archaeological staff at
borough and county levels should be sought, along with consultation of the
County Historic Environment Record (HER) for specific heritage assets.
In terms of site assessments in relation to heritage assets, care should be
taken to avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its
distance from, or intervisibility with, a potential site. Site allocations which
include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may
offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while
conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage
asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.
The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:
* Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site
allocation at an appropriate scale
* Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets
on or within its vicinity
* Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of
heritage asset
* Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including
reasonable alternatives sites * Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
* Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be
removed or reduced
Q4: Which of the sites along the A127 Corridor is the best location for
growth?
The document notes the potential for larger growth opportunities in the A127
corridor, with a residential-led mixed used allocation at West Horndon or a
cross boundary development at Dunton (English Heritage has responded
separately to the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation). The consultation
suggests that development would only occur at either West Horndon or
Dunton, but in the event that both are pursued, we would have reservations
about the cumulative impact and extent of urbanisation along the A127
corridor, which could harm various heritage assets. We would expect in such
a scenario for an adequate buffer between West Horndon and Dunton and
important heritage assets.
Within West Horndon site 038B includes the southern limits of the Thorndon
Hall Registered Park and Garden (Grade II* listed) and Thorndon Park
Conservation Area. This southerly projection is separated from the main Park
and Garden and conservation area by the A127, but the issue of severance must have been considered at the time of designation (in 1987 and 1993
respectively). Housing development on the designated area would result in
harm to its character and appearance, and development abutting its
boundaries might also result in a degree of harm.
On site 162 at Little Warley there is a proposal for an elderly care facility. This
site abuts Little Warely Hall, which dates from the early 16th century and is
listed at Grade II*, together with the Church of St Peter, which dates from the
15th and 17th centuries and is listed at Grade I. Development of an elderly
care facility on this site is likely to adversely impact on the setting of both
these highly graded heritage assets. Sites 058A and 058B on the east side of
Little Warely Hall Lane are also in close proximity to these assets, but well
designed and appropriately scaled housing may be less harmful compared to
the current recycling and HGV operations on site 058A.
Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on
the edge of urban areas?
The report notes that brownfield land within the urban areas might be
efficiently developed in order to minimise pressure on Green Belt releases.
English Heritage broadly agrees with this approach, though we note that a
number of brownfield sites are in close proximity to designated heritage
assets and the design of any developments would need to have special
regard to the setting of these assets.
In terms of releasing sites on the edge of urban areas, this again depends on
the exact location in terms of impact on the historic environment. Very
significant areas of green belt land to the east and southeast of Hutton/east of
Ingrave and Herongate is included in the report and much of this land has
implications for a large number of heritage assets. The Sustainability
Appraisal seems to underplay the impact of this location on the historic
environment, ranking it third out of five potential options for strategic growth.
We would argue that it ranks lower than that. On the extreme eastern edge of Hutton is the Hutton village conservation
area. This conservation area has an open rural setting apart from where it
abuts existing housing on the northern half of its western boundary, and
includes Hutton Hall (Grade II* listed) and the 14th century Church of All Saints
(Grade II* listed) plus a number of other buildings listed at Grade II. The
conservation area also includes areas of open land that make a positive
contribution to its character and appearance. Development sites 033, 211
and 219 all lie within the conservation area and English Heritage cannot see
how they could come forward for development without resulting in significant
harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area, as well as
adversely impacting on the setting of some of listed buildings. Sites 008,
008B and 008C are all likely to adversely impact on wider setting of the
conservation area and the more immediate setting of Hutton House, along
with its walled garden and stables (all listed at Grade II). Site 028C is a large
site that abuts the south east and southwest boundaries of the conservation
area, where development is likely to result in harm to the rural character and
appearance of the conservation area and would also have the potential to
adversely impact on the setting of the Church of All Saints and Hutton Hall (both Grade II* listed). The western boundary of Site 028C also abuts the
boundary of Heatleys, a 16th century Grade II house, and development in this
area would have implications for the setting of this house.
Sites 028A and 028B abut the southeast built edge of Hutton. Development
in this area would have implications for the setting of a number of listed
buildings including Hare Hall (Grade II listed) Heatleys (Grade II) listed and
Kennel House (Grade II listed). It may also have implications for the wider
setting of the Thorndon Park Conservation Area and Thorndon Hall
Registered Park and Garden (Grade II*), as well as longer views out from
Thorndon Hall (Grade I listed).
Site 192 is another large site which adjoins the south of site 028C and is
located to the east of Ingrave and Herongate. This site completely enclosed a
scheduled moated site at Heron Hall, together with the 17th century Grade II
listed Hall and stables and the Grade II* listed granary. This complex of
heritage assets currently enjoys a remote rural setting, and historically the
medieval house sited within the moat would have commanded all this
surrounding land. Development of the land around these heritage assets
would therefore result in significant change to their setting and harm to their
significance.
Site 212 is located to the southwest of the Great Warley conservation area
and, while this site is unlikely to have an impact on the conservation area, it
has the potential to adversely impact on the setting of the Thatched Cottage
and The Squirrels (both dating from the 19th century and listed at Grade II).
This site currently comprises Coombe Wood, which would appear to be of
some landscape and ecological value. Northwest of Great Warley is site 167.
Again this site is sufficiently remote from the conservation area and
Registered Park and Garden, but abuts the northern boundary of Hill Cottage
(Grade II listed) and is in relatively close proximity to Great Ropers, an 18th
century house listed at Grade II*.
Site 218 on the edge of Shenfield lies close to a cluster of listed buildings at
Shenfield Hall, including the Grade II hall and Grade II* Church of St Mary.
There should be assessment of potential impacts. Q6: In the North of the Borough, is it preferable to release greenfield or
brownfield sites?
As noted in the document, the North of the Borough is made up of a collection
of villages set amidst attractive landscape (although it is wrong to simply
consider the landscape as 'natural', as it will contain many historic elements).
In terms of specific sites:
Blackmore
The village includes a designated conservation area that contains a number of
listed buildings forming this historic core of the settlement and some open
land of historic interest that also makes a positive contribution to the character
and appearance of the conservation area. Site 052 is located in the conservation area on land to the rear of Little
Jericho. Little Jericho is a grade II listed house dating from c1600 and the
vacant barn/farm buildings to its rear may be curtilage listed. They may also
make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the
conservation area. Whilst a scheme for the careful adaptation of the farm
buildings into residential use may be acceptable, their demolition and
wholesale redevelopment of the site could well result in harm to the historic
environment.
Site 202 is located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the
conservation area and the loss of open rural views out of the conservation
area (especially from the path that defines this boundary of the conservation
area) is likely to be harmful to the character and appearance of the
conservation area. Site 199 is to the northeast of the conservation area and
would be less likely to impact on its setting, especially if the southern edge of
the development was given a soft and green boundary.
Sites 076 and 077 are both further away from the conservation area, but both
have Grade II listed buildings in close proximity, and development could
adversely impact on the setting of these listed buildings. It might be possible
to bring forward development on both sites that successfully addresses the
issue of setting for these listed building, but it would be necessary to first
understand how setting contributes to their significance.
Hook End
While there is not conservation area in Hook End, there are a number of
Grade II listed buildings that might be affected by development proposals. A
number of these listed buildings are farmhouses that would historically have
been linked to the adjacent open farmland. Loss of this open farmland could
therefore impact on their signficance. In particular site 174 is immediately to
the west of a collection of three Grade II buildings comprising Hook End
Poultry Farmhouse, brewhouse and barn, while Site 183 is to the south west
of Barfield Farmhouse and south east of Deal Tree Farmhouse. Other sites
that may have implications for the setting of designated heritage assets
include 209 (impacting on the Soap House, Grade II), 056A & 056B
(impacting on The Cottage, Grade II) and 196 (impacting on a cluster of
Grade II listed assets comprising a pump, cartlodge, granary and Wyatts
Farmhouse). Thoby Priory
Site 018 incorporates the ruins of Thoby Priory, which is a Scheduled
Monument and listed Grade II. The priory ruins are also on the English
Heritage 'at risk' list. The priory would have been sited in a remote location
suitably for the contemplative life, but that setting has been compromised in
recent years. English Heritage accepts that a development with housing
located to the west and north of the designated assets, whilst retaining an
open aspect to the south and east, could be acceptable, especially if it also
provided for the improved management of the heritage assets.
Kelvedon Hatch A number of possible sites are identified around the periphery of Kelvedon
Hatch. Those on the east side of the settlement have minimal implications for
the historic environment. There are a number of designated heritage assets
(both listed and scheduled) on the west side of the settlement, but most of
these are to the west of A128 and are therefore likely to be adequately
buffered from developments on sites 217 and 194, which are located on the
east side of the A road. There is a smaller site at 074 which may have
implications for the setting of St Nicholas's Church (Grade II). This church is
currently sited on the edge of the settlement and enclosing its open aspect to
the south might result in a degree of harm.
Q7: Do you agree that the most sustainable approach to employment
need is to allocation new sites close to the strategic highway network?
The map on page 22 of the document identifies a number of potential
employment sites. These sites are generally located in close proximity to
existing transport corridors and/or adjacent to current employment sites, and
the majority will have little adverse impact on designated heritage assets. The
exceptions are sites 109 and 187, which are adjacent to East Hordon Hall
(16th and 18th century and Grade II listed). While the setting of the Hall has
already been compromised by the A127 (which passes immediately to the
north) and the existing employment land to the east of the Hall, further
employment buildings in close proximity would exacerbate the existing harm.
Q8: Do you agree that a town centre first approach should be taken to
retail development?
We broadly agree with this approach as it is should help to maintain the vitality
of town centres which in turn can benefit heritage assets within these
locations. It will depend on specific proposals and their impact, but there are
opportunities in places like Brentwood Town Centre to secure enhancements.
In terms of retail site options for Brentwood Town Centre, our 2013 comments
have highlighted specific heritage assets for some of the sites shown in this
consultation. In many respects, Site 100 (Baytree Centre) is the most
important in terms of opportunities to enhance the historic environment, given
its access off the High Street from within the conservation area, and the
proximity of several listed buildings plus a scheduled monument (the chapel).
We would welcome further discussions regarding this site.
Q9: No comments
Q10: Landscape value
Section 5 of this consultation puts heritage into a separate category detached
from other environmental considerations, rather than include it as part of the
overall environmental picture. Figure 15 should include designated heritage
assets, particularly conservation areas, scheduled monuments and registered
parks and gardens. We note the intention to produce further assessment of
landscape capacity surrounding urban areas in paragraph 5.6. We strongly
recommend that this assessment includes the historic environment as a key
component of landscape capacity. Our comments on specific sites reveal the
extent of heritage assets surrounding the urban areas, and this should be
considered in any decisions on suitable sites. The Local Plan evidence base does not appear to contain any specific references to the historic environment,
and we recommend this is addressed.
Q11: No comments
Q12: Infrastructure Issues
The provision of new or improved infrastructure such as transport can have
implications for the historic environment in terms of impact on specific heritage
assets. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan and related work should consider
such issues. In addition, the historic environment can form part of different
types of infrastructure, from community facilities to historic transport
structures. It also contributes to green infrastructure, which is more than just
the natural environment. Publicly accessible parks and gardens,
archaeological sites and spaces within conservation areas and listed buildings
can all form part of existing and proposed green infrastructure networks, with
opportunities to conserve and enhance such elements.
Q13: No comments
We hope that the above comments are of assistance. If you have any queries
or would like to discuss specific points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

see attached

see attached

see attached

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the strategic growth options.

Please find attached RAG sheet summarising Anglian Water's initial thoughts on the sites included in Appendix 1:'List of Suggested Sites'. It should be noted each site is assessed individually and the collective impact of sites on the Water Recycling Centre ( previously referred to as Sewage Treatment Works or Wastewater Treatment) or the foul sewerage network for sites in the same catchment has not been assessed.

Encroachment

It is noted sites 028b,30,34,36,38b,107,173,179,183,192 and 215 all have pumping stations on site or close by. A 15 metre distance between the boundary of the pumping station and the curtilage of any new dwelling should be maintained in order to reduce the risk of nuisance or loss of amenity. The design layout should take this into account.

Surface Water disposal
All developments should adhere to the drainage hierarchy and utilise sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) as much as possible. Disposal to the public surface water piped network should be seen as a last resort. Under no circumstances will surface water be accepted into the foul sewerage network. It is noted that Brentwood propose to develop around 2500 dwellings on brownfield sites and this could be an opportunity to reduce the overall flood risk in Brentwood through re-development by applying the same design standards on developments on previously developed sites as undeveloped sites. Evidence that the developments had followed the surface water management hierarchy will help to ensure infiltration is considered ahead of maintaining connection to sewers. Early engagement is key to ensuring adequate surface water management measures are included.


Pre development service
We offer a pre development service to developers and would encourage the prospective developer to contact us at the earliest opportunity to discuss drainage requirements to serve their proposal. Details including application form can be found at:

http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/developers/planning/

see attached

Please find attached my completed consultation questionaire for the Strategic Growth Options Consultation.
I support the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework for the protection of the Green Belt to prevent urban creep.
I strongly oppose inappropriate development in the green belt except in exceptional circumstances where the benefits clearly outweigh the harm and we also support the view that housing need alone does not constitute exceptional benefit.
However, I acknowledge the challenge that the Strategic Housing Allocation numbers present to Brentwood Borough Council. I recognise that without clear locations for the necessary houses identified by the Strategic Housing Allocation, Brentwood Borough Council will be highly unlikely to have a robust Local Development Plan approved. That presents the risk of aggressive speculative developers attempting to obtain planning approval anywhere in the borough and that the appeals system could result in inappropriate and poorly coordinated development taking place.
Thus in the unfortunate circumstance where Green Belt does have to be sacrificed in order to meet the statutory obligations of the Strategic Housing Allocation it is essential that only the minimum amount of land is sacrificed and that this is done in locations and in such a way that harm and urban creep is kept to an absolute minimum.
All my responses to the questions in the consultation must be viewed in this light.

020 and 021 (industrial estate in West Horndon) which are already 5 year plan could be developed in positive way for West Horndon if the site was developed at a lower density. Although the surrounding infrastructure will be inadequate.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Green belt sites surrounding West Horndon. Development of these will change the existing West Horndon village beyond all recognition and put significant strain on the infrastructure. This is an inappropriate development which represent significant harm to the local environment and residents which will not be out weighted by the need for housing within the borough. There is also no reference to the major flood problems that would occur if development took place on any of these areas.

Sies 020 and 021 (Industrial Estates in West Horndon) are already in the 5-year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed in a positive manner for West Horndon village. Development, however, at the current density (500) would increase the residential size of West Horndon village by C.90%. This would require a concerted effort to ensure the infrastructure is developed to cope with the expansion. The present infrastructure (roads, school, healthcare, drainage and public transport) would be totally inadequate in the light of such a huge expansion of the village.

Sites 037A, B and C, )38A and B, and 126 are all Green Belt sites surrounding West Horndon village. Bevelopment of these sites would change the existing village beyond all recognition and put a very significant strain on local resources and infrastructure. Such development with in the Green Belt would be totally inappropriate and represent significant harm to the local environment. Harm which would not be outweighed by the need for housing within the Borough. There is also no mention within the consultation document to the major flood problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

see attached

See attached.

See attached.

see attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: 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 and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is 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 development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: 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 and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is 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 development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: 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 and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is 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 development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: 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 and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is 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 development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: 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 and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is 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 development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
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 - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: 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 and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is 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 development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

See attached

see attached

see attached

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: Yes - They have different aspects, so yes.

Q2: No - Flooding is a problem on the A127 corridor. The A127 is busier than the A12 and the A12 has more potential for development. The open farmland of the A127 is not inferior to that elsewhere in the borough, how has this conclusion been reached?

Q3: Yes - 037 A, B and C and 126 are all Green Belt surrounding the village. If the industrial estates are developed, the 400+ houses proposed there will increase West Horndon by 70%. To build on the surrounding Green Belt as well would be inappropriate development and damaging to the local environment. Flooding would also be a major issue.

Q4: Site 200 - Dunton Garden Suburb should be developed in preference to the fields surrounding West Horndon (037, 038 & 126). Infrastructure must be established, and a buffer zone around West Horndon should be put in place to preserve the village.

Q5: Yes - As Brentwood needs so many houses, all suitable sites along the A12 should be considered. Why should it be centred around West Horndon and the A127?

Q6: Brownfield sites should always be considered in preference to Greenfield. Green Belt should be preserved.

Q7: Yes - From an environmental view as well as the practical view, this makes sense, although public transport must be provided.

Q8: Yes - Good public transport links are essential to ensure economic sustainability in the established town centres. Ease of car park facilities should also be a priority.

Q9: Yes - We have a small park at present. With the likely development of the new industrial sites and the potential development of DSG, more open space will be required for the village, certainly not less.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
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 - The A128 will be heavily impacted by any development and this should also be considered for upgrading.

Q13: My priorities would be transport, health and education, which should be in place before the developments need them!
Other comments: Dunton Garden Suburb is my preferred option.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No - The A127 is always busy and there are frequent roadworks. The A12 flows much better. The A127 is prone to flooding, which causes further delays.

Q3: Yes - The areas 020 and 021 are brownfield industrial sites, which are already in the 5 year land supply. If 400-500 houses are built here, that will change West Horndon by about 80% increase in housing. 037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are Green Belt. This would be inappropriate development and would cause environmental harm. These fields are frequently water logged and therefore prone to flooding.

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb is preferred. It has a great deal of potential for growth, as although it is in our parish, it is outside the village. Robust buffer zones should be established however.

Q5: Yes - Brentwood should use the available sites for significant development in these areas. As previously stated, I believe there is more capacity on the A12 rather than the A127.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be developed, greenfield should not be developed, and should be regarded as sacrosanct.

Q7: Yes - Transport by bus from railway stations must be established.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: Yes - We have a park in West Horndon. The potential development of the Dunton Harden Suburb should include more open spaces for us, as DSG will impact us.

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

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

Q12: As previously stated, the A127 struggles now. No information seems to be available re C2C.

Q13: Health, education and transport are what I consider to be priorities. These must be established sooner, rather than later.

See attachment.