1.The spatial strategy is not founded on an 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence' base and is therefore fundamentally flawed, failing to accord with the NPPF (paragraph 158). The Plan adopts an arbitrary approach to residential development by restricting development in the Green Belt rather than positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the Borough. There is no comprehensive justification for failing to meet objectively assessed needs.
2.Despite identifying that the Borough cannot meet its own housing needs, the Council has failed to seek to meet those needs by cooperating with neighbouring authorities, summarised as follows:
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy which does not seek to accommodate its full housing need.
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's approach of looking to neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need.
*The City Council raises concerns regarding the deliverability of sites, such as the strategic allocations in West Horndon, identified for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
*The City Council objects to the Preferred Options Local Plan being published for public consultation prior to key relevant evidence base documents being made available.

Proposed Changes to the Plan: Policy S1: Spatial Strategy should be amended to change the word 'redevelopment' in the first paragraph to 'development'. The final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"Amendments shall be made to the Green Belt to enable the following development:
i. Strategic Allocation at West Horndon;
ii. Allocation at land east of Bayleys Mead; and
iii. Existing developed sites in the Green Belt."

3. The Key Diagram ( figure 2.10) should be amended to show housing sites and the release of Green Belt land in accordance with representations and policies S1 and S2.

1.The spatial strategy is not founded on an 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence' base and is therefore fundamentally flawed, failing to accord with the NPPF (paragraph 158). The Plan adopts an arbitrary approach to residential development by restricting development in the Green Belt rather than positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the Borough. There is no comprehensive justification for failing to meet objectively assessed needs.
2.Despite identifying that the Borough cannot meet its own housing needs, the Council has failed to seek to meet those needs by cooperating with neighbouring authorities, summarised as follows:
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy which does not seek to accommodate its full housing need.
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's approach of looking to neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need.
*The City Council raises concerns regarding the deliverability of sites, such as the strategic allocations in West Horndon, identified for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
*The City Council objects to the Preferred Options Local Plan being published for public consultation prior to key relevant evidence base documents being made available.

Proposed Changes to the Plan: Policy S1: Spatial Strategy should be amended to change the word 'redevelopment' in the first paragraph to 'development'. The final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"Amendments shall be made to the Green Belt to enable the following development:
i. Strategic Allocation at West Horndon;
ii. Allocation at land east of Bayleys Mead; and
iii. Existing developed sites in the Green Belt."

3. The Key Diagram ( figure 2.10) should be amended to show housing sites and the release of Green Belt land in accordance with representations and policies S1 and S2.

See attached Report.

See attached Report.

See attached

See attached

020 & 021 Sites could have houses, health and communities facilities built. At East Horndon (A127) the night club site could have houses. The village is low lying. Flooding occurs across the farmers fields to Cadogan Avenue, Station Road, Thorndon Avenue and to the Church.

Railway: The trains are already full in the rush hour - only two trains stop per hour
Buses: More buses would be needed, only 3 travel to Brentwood at present but they immediately come back to West Horndon.

The Metropolitan Green Belt lung should remain.
There should be no building on farmers fields - we need to grow more food.

No Gipsies.

See attached

I have lived in Brentwood for 33 years and have seen a decline in the overall quality of life in Brentwood. There has been massive development without improvement of infrastructure e.g. poor roads and an alarming increase in traffic.

I am against any further development as above and the idea of some 3,500 homes in the future is unacceptable. Get the infrastructure right first then consider limited housing development.

Please register my objection to any proposed building on any land, as set out the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, that is designated as Greenbelt. I understand that responses must be received by midnight tonight.

Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose, among others, 2 significant chunks of greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined.

Please register my objection to any proposed building on any land, as set out the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, that is designated as Greenbelt. I understand that responses must be received by midnight tonight.

Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose, among others, 2 significant chunks of greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined.

See attached

See Attached

See attached

See Attached

See attached

See attached response.

Please register my objection to any proposed building on any land, as set out the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, that is designated as Greenbelt. I understand that responses must be received by midnight tonight.

Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose, among others, 2 significant chunks of greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined given the original 'commitments' to it made by wartime generation politicians who clearly envisaged moments in time such as this. This practice will set a precedent not only for Brentwood, but the greenbelt everywhere.

Please register my objection to the proposed 2015-2030 Local Plan.

Any Planning Policy that proposes to destroy Brentwood greenbelt, as designated in the 2005 Local Plan, is objected by myself. I would like my children to enjoy the same greenbelt as I have and do not want Brentwood to be swallowed up into yet another borough of London due to the erosion of greenbelt that you propose.

Object to:
Primarily - CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area & Supporting Documents
plus the following in connection with impact on West Horndon;
S2: Amount & Distribution of Residential Development
CP3: Strategic Sites 020 / 021 / 037
DM11: New Development in the Green Belt
DM17: Wildlife and Nature Conservation
DM24: Affordable Housing
DM28: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
DM35: Flood Risk
Appendix 3: Housing Trajectory

Comments (please use additional sheet if required):
The Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and supporting documents are in sufficiently detailed with information to justify the disproportionate allocation of 43% of the borough housing requirement and 70% of Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be allocated to the village of West Horndon. These numbers will treble the current size of the village whilst decimating a large area of Green Belt. We as villagers did not receive the promised feedback from the 2011 consultation and previously discounted areas of Greenfield have now been put back into the LDP without explanation despite strong resident opposition to Green Belt development. The character of the village will be irreparably damaged by such a huge development and change our village status to a small town with none of the amenities. I am being expected to make a decision on the future of my neighbourhood with limited information which is wholly unacceptable.

The LDP fails to state how and when the local road, education, health, rail and utility infrastructure will be improved to accommodate such an aggressive development and from where the necessary funding has been secured. It would be irresponsible to proceed without detailed planning for such vital associated services. There is no further rail capacity available and the route does not provide access to our borough. The housing trajectory shows a staged construction of houses yet there is no evidence of a demand for house building in the area as potential sites have been left undeveloped in Station Road and on the Elliott's site for several years. Affordable and social housing is not ideally situated in rural areas such as West Horndon and the new development is unlikely to comprise of properties similar to the family homes that dominate the village demographic. Traffic at its peak causes congestion along Station road when trying to exit onto the already dangerous and packed A128. (numerous accidents have occurred at this junction before and after highways made changes and adding further traffic will raise the risks further )
The LDP gives no consideration to the wider implications from other developments in the vicinity, such as the DP World port and proposed A2 Thames crossing, both of which will dramatically increase traffic in the area and place further burdens on the Borough's infrastructure without the additional traffic from the proposed West Horndon development. There are only two routes into Brentwood from West Horndon (A128 / Warley) and access to the area will be gridlocked.
Green Belt development is designed to halt the sprawl of London and should only be in exceptional cases. In the evidence documents on the BBC website the projected population increase for Brentwood is primarily migratory. I see absolutely no reason why the Green Belt should be threatened by movement of people which, by its very nature, can settle on non green belt locations. The wildlife in the area will be adversely affected by the proposed development on Green Belt and I must question whether investigation has been made into protected species which inhabit the area such as Great Crested Newts as there is no mention in the LDP.
The Environmental Agency lists areas 020, 021 and 037 as being on flood plain as borne out by the most recent flooding incidents in 2012. The village suffers from flooding or near flooding on a regular basis in this area with no plans to remove the risk of further flooding once the development has been started it will only get worse. There is no evidence that this factor has been considered in the LDP and to site traveller and gypsy pitches on a flood plain is unacceptable.
I do not believe that the LDP is sound or robust enough to be considered in its present form and appears to be a rash decision to fulfil government targets. I acknowledge that progress must be made and that some development may be necessary and this should be made in smaller numbers to keep the village in its status. However, much more investigation needs to be undertaken by the council and the views of the community considered in depth before any decisions are made that will affect us in the long term.

Please register my objection to any proposed building on any land, as set out in the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, that is designated as
Greenbelt. Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood
will lose, among others, 2 significant chunks of greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined given the original 'commitments' to it made by wartime generation politicians who clearly envisaged moments in time such as this.

I wish to respond to the Draft Plan on the proposed development at West Horndon as follows:

1. Proposed Size of Development
The Draft Option shows the preference of the Borough Council to be a major new development of 1500 dwellings added to the small village community of West Horndon. West Horndon is currently made up of 750 dwellings. The proposed development plans would triple the size of the village and change its character. Under the Borough Councils development plans for 2015 to 2030, the village would be asked to accept 43% of the development of the borough.

West Horndon village is mentioned in the 1086 Doomsday Book. The scale of the proposed development would inundate the existing village and would result in creating a new settlement that would threaten the current commercial and community centre of the village redundant or even create a divide in the village by creating a competing commercial area to the existing areas. The proposed plans bring no improvements for the village but are an appendage to the village.

The plan contains few details to support the allocation of a major development to a small village. For example a variety of alternative, modern methods of sustainable sewage treatment are suitable and environmentally beneficial which could be used in the less populated north of the borough, but these appear not to have been investigated. For example, near West Horndon, in St Mary's Lane is a brand new settlement of 10-12 houses with an independent waste water treatment which is commercially viable as all properties have been sold. This should be thoroughly investigated and replicated where possible in the areas discounted as alternative options 3 (semi dispersed growth) and 4 (dispersed growth) in section S1 Spatial Strategy.

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This does not appear to have been implemented. For example the preferred options document states that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". It is essential that a plan is provided addressing the following issues that currently impact upon West Horndon and with the proposed development are implemented. Currently West Horndon is several degrees cooler than the surrounding town areas and in the long winter months heating is vital, there is a very poor broadband speed in the area, both the primary school and doctors surgery are at full capacity and there is a legal obligation for local authorities to provide school places and healthcare to everyone who requests the services. West Horndon is a flood risk area. The lack of evidence is not acceptable and full studies would need to be carried out and consulted upon before any agreement to develop takes place.

As residents of West Horndon we are being asked to comment on very significant proposal, but we are currently only being provided with a fragmented draft outline of what is proposed. The proposed developed do not highlight or state any developments for the village. There is no proposal of how the scheme might seek to mitigate against any harmful impacts.

The Borough Council are attempting to run a full consultation exercise on a draft proposal which needs further research and proper evidence. It would probably be open to judicial review if passed in its present form.

2. Consultation process
The government has said that, "too often power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them".

I feel that this plan and the consultation process have been done with a top down approach and not bottom up, it's as if the borough council are not listening to the community. I do agree that any dwellings should be developed on the green belt land identified on the plan as 037. There is no natural stopping boundary in this proposal and I believe in time this would be extended to cover all the land up to the A127.

The national guidelines state that 'Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies'. The plan presented to residents is still in its infancy and needs further development in areas such as: flooding, transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, public transport. Currently the proposal is neither robust nor comprehensive and cannot be completely considered at this time. The borough council need to carry out an extensive study of West Horndon and the other sites mentioned above to ensure its plans are affordable. The proposed plans focus on the building of houses but they do not focus on the difficult task of enhancing the community. It needs to be ensured and enforced that the developers who build the houses will not walk away leaving the problems and challenges created for the Borough Council and West Horndon residents to solve and pay for.

3. Metropolitan Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework states that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts and to build on them is in appropriate and harmful. The large plot of 037 is green belt and has no boundary and creep will eventually result in it being built on to the A127 boundary.

If building has to take place in West Horndon then is should be done on the brown belt areas. Suitable brown belt areas are the West Horndon Industrial Estate. There are also brown belt areas at Hutton Industrial, Waits Way industrial Estate and the site formerly housing Elliott's night club. Timmerman's nursery on the 127 was formerly green belt land and if it were to be purchased would be a site suitable for dwellings. Ingatestone have a garden centre which could be developed into residential dwellings. As previously stated there are currently sites of 10-12 newly built houses which have sold successfully and have independent sewage system. This could be replicated across the north of the borough. I do not wish to see one dwelling built on green belt land. However IF green belt land in West Horndon has be built upon then perhaps extending the town along Station Road, and extending the park behind the dwellings and opening an entrance onto Station Road, could be an option as a boundary is created. This would increase the lighting along Station Road and along with newly developed suitably lit pathways towards the park creating safe areas for jogging and walking for all age groups, which the village is currently missing. This could provide an exceptional benefit to all members of the community.

4. Cohesion with local amenities
The last census shows that West Horndon contains 750 dwellings, with around 1900 people. The proposal is for an additional 1500 dwellings of yet undetermined density. This is a major proposal which will have a momentous impact on the current residents and the proposed new residents. For example the village a limited range of shops (two corner shops, fireplace shops, a hairdressers and beauty treatment shops, one or two small cafes). The corner shops currently closes at 8pm latest with the other shops closing by 5pm. The ATM charges to withdraw money. The majority of events held in the village hall run during the day. There is no secondary school in West Horndon and there are limited unreliable bus runs to the local secondary schools. The currently public bus service is limited and also unreliable. The commuter trains to and from Fenchurch Street Station are already at full capacity and Network Rail have no plans to upgrade the station, the train frequency, the ancient cement foot bridge, the very dangerous pedestrian entrance (it has no footpath, frequently floods, and has low hanging greenery in the way of pedestrians). The availability of the doctor surgery is over stretched, the surgery does not open before 9am or after 5pm, and it closes for 2 hours at lunch! It is very difficult to get an appointment at the surgery even more so for those who work 9 to 5 out of the local area.
West Horndon primary school is at full capacity and there are limited activities for the younger population to do after school. Unlike the rail link between Shenfield and Ingatestone, the rail at West Horndon only leads out of the borough. A more reliable and affordable bus link to Brentwood is essential if the borough wishes to help ensure money is contained within the borough. If the industrial estate located at West Horndon is to be moved to the M25 site then a reliable and affordable link between the West Horndon and the new industrial estate is essential as many residents that currently work there do not need to travel as such. Shenfield is soon to be a Cross rail station (in line with the current 2015-2030 proposal) and despite being advertised as 'end of the crossrail line' there is in fact one stop to Liverpool Street and therefore makes access to Heathrow and London extremely quick! Travel between West Horndon, Billericay and Shenfield is through busy with winding country lanes that have problems throughout the winter season.

The creation of additional dwellings will need the village to have a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; more additional money and resources to enable the village hall to run classes and events after the standard 9 to 5; an upgraded transport service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood; the doctors surgery is currently in need of greater resources to enable it to open for longer hours and Saturdays.

It is necessary for a much more thought to be given to the proposed retail development on the brownfield site so that it enhances rather than competes or takes away from the village centre and heart.

5. Impact on the countryside and character of the village
The village is a small low density settlement and is surrounded all by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years for wheat, oil seed rape, and peas. Construction of 1,000 dwellings that green belt farmed land will reduce food available to the UK, less land for wildlife and loss of ancient hedgerows and borders. It will also destroy the open setting and rural character of the village.

6. Impact on the residents
If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows did not indicate what is proposed. We would like low density development. The proposed location of new shops and 'new village hall' is close to existing dwellings and noise of large lorries backing up will travel. Timings of deliveries will need to be limited and agreed. I disagree with a new village hall as proposed by the developers, two are not needed and it will give the village two centres, thus polarising it.

The volume of traffic will increase through the village including additional trucks supply to the shops and removal of the waste. Back gardens currently not over looked will be intruded and the village will lose its rural character. Development against existing housing should be at a low level. Development needs to be agreed by the residents.

7. Impact on the road and junctions in the borough
The major roads of 127 and 128 are already unable to cope with the morning and evening flows of traffic. To create an additional lane and make the dual carriage ways three lanes (effectively making them motorways) would be extremely costly and involve removing several homes. The Station Road 128 Junction would require extensive redevelopment to cope with the higher volumes of traffic. The bridge over the railway station is an s bend and narrow, which would need to be widened and become a modern 'carbuncle' on the side of the village.

The junction at the station, the current industrial estate is a dangerous blind spot. Traffic coming over the bridge cannot see traffic exiting the station nor from the estate. Traffic from the station exit is unable to see traffic coming over the bridge. Pedestrian do not have a crossing across station road and need to run the width of two lanes and two bus stops - a very wide stretch of road between the proposed site and the station. If dwelling are built on the industrial estate the crossing to the railway station and bus station (for children returning from secondary school) will be extremely dangerous. The proposed small roundabout proposed by the developers would not help to improve safety for pedestrians. It appears to be a lazy and cheap solution and needs proper investigation. The pedestrian entrance to the station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath available for pedestrians.

Existing junctions from 127 to the village are inadequate and vehicles need to slow down to 20mph and lower to safely go onto these roads, at the annoyance and indeed horror of other road users which, when able, can travel at 60mph.

There are no footpaths to the west of the west of the village along St Mary's Lane which lead to winding narrow roads.

8. Flood risk
The proposed plot of 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It does indeed flood and has done badly 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. The Environment Agency web site shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding. The village is situated in a low lying area with the hills of Brentwood to its north. Flood alleviation in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

9. Loss of current employment
The brownfield site proposed to be used is almost 17 hectares of employment land. It will be essential that existing businesses can be relocated to nearby sites efficiently, cheaply and with benefit to the businesses so that they are not lost to other boroughs in the area. This is to ensure that existing residents are able to continue working within the area, something which should be encouraged wherever possible.

I really do care for the village I have chosen to live in and welcome good, well-integrated, robustly investigated and sustainable development. In the years ahead I will not have to explain to others, and also live with long term problems which will be left by the developers, should the current plans be put into effect without a thorough consultation and assessment.

See Attached.

My girlfriend and I are 29 and moved into Thorndon Avenue 18 months ago. It took us many years to save our deposit up, and we chose the village for its scenery, demography and village character.

If the planned proposals were to go ahead, the level of additional supply of housing every year for 15 years, the demography of many of the people moving into the new properties and the locality of the gypsie/traveller pitches would almost certainly negatively effect the value of our property. After working hard for all those years to buy our first home, we would then be unable to move house ever again given the losses doing so would incur. How could anybody justify this - destroying so much wealth.

Other concerns that I have are as follows:
- The level of housing proposed (>40% of the total housing requirement in Brentwood) is massively disproportionate to population of West Horndon. Irrespective of the available infrastructure, this would complete change the character of the village - indeed it would cease to be a village.
- This would build over Green Belt land unnecessarily when there are other areas with adequate transport networks that could absorb the level of housing build proposed in West Horndon
- Eric Pickles comments in the Independent 2rd June 2010 "It will no longer be possible to concrete over large swathes of the country without any regard to what local people want" and ""The previous government gave a green light for the destruction of the green belt across the country and we are determined to stop it." This is literally concreting over green belt land - it cannot be described any other way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/03/eric-pickles-concrete-green-belt [ link to article in the Guardian 'Eric Pickles: government will not concrete over green belt' Monday 3 Oct 2011]
- Your proposals will be trapping myself and my partner for many years in our current house, and we may never be able to leave as a result of the house price declines this will cause.- There is no guidance on the % of affordable housing in the West Horndon area
- What is the definition of affordable housing and what would the character of these properties be
- Where, specifically, would the gypsie / traveller pitches be placed. Does the council have a legal obligation to provide these.
- I understand there is a current motion in Parliament that removes the obligation to house gypsie / traveller populations - what is the progress of this and will the planned pitches in West Horndon be cancelled if this motion suceeds.
- The wealth destruction to the value of the existing houses would be enormous. In a society that aims to increase wealth, how can this proposal even be considered and what kind of incentive does it provide to even continue working and providing to the state.

See attached

I would like to make a comment on the proposed Local Development Plan and how it may affect the village of West Horndon.

The plan does not provide enough detail of exactly why West Horndon has been chosen for such a vast remodelling compared to the modest developments to other villages on the periphery of Brentwood.

The village is a flood risk area and was flooded as recently as last Christmas. There is no detail in the plan about any environmental assessment having been carried out as to the impact of 1,500 new homes in such a vulnerable area.
Please will you provide details of whether or not this has been done.

The use of Metropolitan Green Belt land for building new homes is the most shocking point in the plan as I have been led to believe since my childhood that Green Belt land is sacrosanct and designed to prevent urban sprawl which is so common in many areas of the country.

Please would you explain why the council is proposing that such a thing could take place and if there are any exceptional circumstances which could possibly justify this.

In terms of sustainability, West Horndon does not seem to be a particularly good choice as although we have a train station, the services are few and far between and the trains are often full before they reach here.

What communication has the council undertaken with C2C to ensure that capacity will be increased to cope with the increased demand?

The road system in this area is heavily congested at peak times and junctions on to the A127 and A128 are inadequate with frequent accidents occurring.
How will the roads be improved to meet the challenge of increased traffic and will these improvements be carried out before the new homes are built?

I do accept that some development must take place in all areas of the Borough and I am not averse to any change in West Horndon but the scale of the the proposed changes seems to me to be ill thought out and not thoroughly planned.

At present, I feel that I have no choice but to OBJECT to these plans as there is insufficient detail in them to make them worthy of consideration.

I wish to register my strong objection to any proposed building on land that is designated as Greenbelt, as set out in the current (2005) Brentwood Local Plan.

Should the draft 2015-2030 Local Plan be approved, we stand to lose significant amounts of Greenbelt land in the Brentwood area.

Greenbelt areas should be accessible and available to us all, once lost to planners and developers there is no way back.

See Attached

I appreciate and accept that nothing stays the same forever, and that some development to West Horndon could improve our facilities and enhance the look of the village. By removing the Industrial Parks it is possible to achieve this. However, I do not feel that the Council has fully investigated the implications and practicalities of this development and therefore the information provided is sketchy and conflicting. There is not enough evidence to confirm that thorough investigations have been made and findings published to make a balanced and constructed decision.

Currently the people employed on the Industrial Estate have bus and train services to get them to work. The new site provides neither of these and the Council do not appear to have considered this and the possibility that employment will be lost.

With respect to the development of the green belt land to the north of the Industrial sites and the alternative suggestion that the Council could develop land in Station Road towards the A128 I strongly object. The demand for housing in West Horndon would be more than adequately provided on the Industrial Areas. The Green Belt should be protected and remain intact for the reasons it was initially put in place- to prevent urban sprawl.

As an alternative development area, would it not be appropriate for the Council to research the land on the A127, currently Timmermans Nurseries, which is up for sale?

Most people who live in West Horndon do so because they enjoy the small village community and a semi-rural location. The proposed plans to more than treble the size of the village remove all of these aspects and alter a village to a small town. The Village already has issues with flooding, water / sewage and other utilities, education, health and internet to name but a few. This is with a population of less than 1900. In addition, the Council do not appear to have considered the daily traffic volumes and the impact on the A127 and A128 which struggles to meet current demands. The existing infrastructure could not cope with the increase but the Council do not appear to have assessed this.

The outline proposed does not give sufficient information to make a decision and needs to clarify on research and evidence to support its recommendations. No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife and bio-diversity issues.

Finally I currently object to the Traveller Site being located within the village as no definite proposal seems to have been identified and it is left to speculation. West Horndon Village attracts families and focuses on a close knit community. It is suggested that the Travellers will not be families and therefore I do not feel they will fit in with our community. In view of recent events, with national news coverage, at Dale Farm, Buckles Lane Ockendon and another area in Brentwood I do not believe our small community could cope. We have little crime at present which is evidenced that we only have a visiting police presence.

I have lived in West Horndon, with my husband and two sons, for 22 years. I am appalled by the details of the proposed new housing development in the area. The development of 1500 houses would not only spoil the character of the village but would also destroy much-treasured greenbelt unnecessarily. I can see no reason why West Horndon is been asked to carry the weight of this burden when other areas of Brentwood will be left untouched.

Building on this site, knowing it is a flood plain, would also be utterly reckless given the recent history of floods in the area. It has also been suggested that the area is supported by a strong road network but any resident would tell you of the gridlock which is experienced by road users on the A128 every morning.

I am taking this opportunity to plead with the planning policy team to reconsider before real and lasting damage is caused; this development will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the area.

The housing needs of the borough could easily be supported by a number of smaller, more sustainable developments on Brownfield sites, which are available within the borough.