Your proposal plans to more than double the population of a relatively small village with a distinct character. While provisions need to be made for new housing, any development should fit with the existing character of the area as much as possible, and not create undue burdens on existing residents and infrastructure.

While West Horndon has access to public transportation, it is short-sighted and unjust to put 43% of new development in a town that currently accounts for 2% of the Borough's population.

Creating new residences should be a priority of the Borough, however any development should not create an undue negative impact on existing residents who have made the Borough their home. Your development proposes to fundamentally change the character of West Horndon, and negatively impact the property values and character of existing residences.

See attachment

Proposed Development at West Horndon
Why? Has this small, quiet village of 500, been proposed for 43% of Brentwoods Housing Development, when so much land to the north and elsewhere in Brentwood is ignored. Such development would more than treble the size of this village, ruin & swamp it, making a Town.
Its obvious that no study or assessment has been carried out regarding infrastructure, facilities & amenities of the village, which are very limited, sufficient only for sm. Village.
We are surrounded by Metropolitan Green Belt - not for building on, separating us from spread from London. Also farmland & countryside housing a wide variety of wildlife in & around the village. This large expanse of open countryside would be destroyed by development.
We are situated on heavy clay and in flood risk area, having been flooded badly in 57, 81 & 2012. Heavy rain also easily floods gardens, filed south of the railway line and those down St. Mary's Lane.
We have few shops, no secondary school or easy access to any, Primary School full to capacity, with waiting list for future village pupils.
Takes 3 days to get Dr's appointment, limited time on site. No health care centre or clinic or transport to such, local hospital Basildon, full to capacity, very limited means of transport or access to Upminster, Brentwood or Basildon.
Transport 3 buses in morning, only to Brentwood, turn in village. Station, 2 trains an hour full and packed to capacity on arrival in Rush hr. More trains apparently, can not be out on, as a schedule change would affect thousands' elsewhere.
No disabled access, car park packed from Bulphan & Brentwood, Bridge is accident prone.
There are only three ways in and out of the village, apart from St. Mary's Lane, there is Thorndon Ave. & Station Road, both have cars packed along them Thorndon has no rt turn onto 127. To get on to 127 & 128 even now, is often at breaking point and very difficult. Vast increase of traffic in the village, would bring everything to standstill.
It would also present great danger to our school children & Elderly. The children, going from road to pavement - due to their state, riding on scooters & bikes, Elderly with Electric schooters. Also the many - young & old, who use the village hall, 7 days a week from early morning to 10pm at night.
We already have cars who ignore speed limit and full park outside MCColls shops.
Its obvious that this village is totally unsuitable for any housing development, except perhaps for a care home for the village elderly.

Re: The LDP Plan for Housebuilding at West Horndon
I refer to the above proposed development by Brentwood Borough Council for up to 1500 new homes located in West Horndon. I am surprised and astonished at the proposed quantity earmarked for West Horndon being 43% of the entire allocation across the Borough! This surely you must agree is excessive and cannot be correct. Why should West Horndon have so much when there are many other parts of the Borough? What allocation is being made in Blackmore and Doddinghust for example?
Further I am also extremely concerned about the comments that West Horndon could give rise to further capacity.
This large expansion effectively means the nature and characteristics of the village will be permanently changed and it will become a small town. There will need to be considerable infrastructure and building works put in place. The railway station and platforms are already at full capacity and the roads will become increasingly crowded and more dangerous. This is quite apart from the increased footflow and building work which will no doubt adversely affect the drainage situation in West Horndon, which as you know is on a flood plain.
As mentioned above West Horndon is on a flood plain and has been flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. It is obvious that further building on the proposed scale will increase the flood risk in certain locations in the village.
In addition as mentioned previously the roads and junctions in the area are inadequate to cope with more traffic. There will no doubt be adverse overcrowding implications for the A127 and A128, and doubtless gridlocks on the roads in and around West Horndon will ensue.
I understand that local plans of this nature must meet certain criteria and in my opinion this plan has definite failings and shortcomings. I have even mentioned the destruction of the green belt areas and the loss of wildlife.
Your proposal is just not acceptable due to the massive level of housing envisaged and for the reasons outlined in the foregoing paragraphs.

On behalf of Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council I am writing to register our objection to the Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options Consultation for the following reasons;

1. Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose, amongst others, 2 significant chunks of Metropolitan greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood thus undermining the 'green ribbon' around London. Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council does not wish to go the same way as Romford, in 1964, when Havering was incorporated as a new London Borough of Havering and no longer part of Essex County Councils administrative area.

Metropolitan Greenbelt was so named because the instigators of the scheme recognised the exceptional importance of preventing London from sprawling, uncontrollably, across the Home Counties. They saw this as a unique problem due to the size of our capital and the multiplicity of Local Authorities who have a legitimate interest in its growth. It is incumbent on Planners in Essex to pay particular note to this fact and to avoid damaging our green belt at their whim.

2. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined given the original 'commitments' to it made by the post-war generation politicians who clearly envisaged situations such as this.

The proposals set a significant precedent for building on greenbelt land of which Herongate and Ingrave has.

3. Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council recommends that the current greenbelt, as set out in the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, is retained.

4. Appropriate infrastructure will not be in place to accommodate 1500 extra homes, when built, in West Horndon. West Horndon currently has around 700 homes. Facilities used by Herongate and Ingrave residents will be under increased pressure be it for Hospitals, Doctors, Dentists, Schools, roads and other services.

The proposed massive increase in the population of West Horndon will inevitably compound the problems that we already experience at peak times on the A128. The villages of Herongate and Ingrave create an inevitable ?pinch point? for this congestion. What consideration has been given to coping with the additional loading on our main road?

5. No consultation has taken place with C2C with regards to the increased usage of West Horndon train station and car park. Many residents of our villages use the train station and car park but there are no plans to increase train platform length and car park capacity that is already under strain.

6. There are no planned new secondary schools for the proposed West Horndon development. All the Brentwood secondary schools are oversubscribed and St Martin's has a planning condition not to go beyond 1805 pupils due to congestion. St Martin's is the local secondary school that most Herongate and Ingrave children go to and parents already experience significant traffic congestion during school runs.

7. The proposed movement of West Horndon's industrial premises to the designated greenbelt, as defined in the current 2005 Brentwood Local Plan, to the M25/A127 junction fails to consider public transport for workers that the current industrial site enjoys via a bus service and the regular train service some 50m away. This will increase local road traffic congestion and exclude potential workers that are unable to travel to the proposed new greenbelt industrial site.

8. The proposed Local Plan 2015-2030 acknowledges that 80% of Brentwood's growth will be from outside the borough. Clearly it does not serve the needs of local Brentwood Residents to build on greenbelt land increasing demand on existing, under pressure, services. There are absolutely no guarantees that new housing will meet local demand and that much of this will not be bought for financial investment as part of the buy to let phenomenon.

9. Albeit the proposals are to build on Grade 3 farmland this is still a loss of food production for a country that is unable to feed itself without importation. Building on existing farmland is dangerous and exacerbates the inability for UK to feed itself. This, potentially, affects everyone.

10. In the event that any new West Horndon development is flooded other Brentwood Borough taxpayers are likely to have an increase in Council Tax to pay for improved flood defences.

See attached

See attached

Major Development West Horndon
The preferred Options Document published by The Borough Council, propose a massive development of the local village, an increase we are told of some 43% of the requirement for the whole of Brentwood!!
If such a plan takes place it will obviously alter 'The Village' beyond recall, its status as a village Will be gone, it would in all probability make it a small unattractive town similar to others that litter the Essex landscape. All that is shown is a shaded area of the proposed site, with the comment that plans of the infrastructure are forthcoming.
So resident are expected to come up with an opinion upon a proposal of an extra 1500 houses and some Traveller sites (how many, how knows?), with nothing as yet about the infrastructure to support this new community.
The Local Planning Authority it would seem have not done their homework upon this matter, because certain factors are apparant event to a layman such as myself which would guide one to the opinion that the plan has been hastily put together with absolutely no consideration for its obvious flaws Some examples are listed below.
1. It is a well established/published fact that West Horndon and Bulphan are at risk of flooding,
As previous history shows. Even last Christmas, Cadogan, Thorndon Ave and part of Childerditch were flooded, there was even flood water cascading across the A127 near the Half Way House - the last event happens almost annually. If your local authority have no evidence of this perhaps they should look in the local papers where it generally featured. As the whole area is upon a downhill slope from Brentwood etc, its is hardly surprising that there is a lot of flooding in the area. Another visual annual site of flooding is Childerditch and onward to Dunnings Lane which necessitates frantic digging of ditches and road repairs to allow the Buses through. All this notwithstanding the excessive flood water that is being passed onto Bulphan. It could be that they may take exception to this new development which would almost certainly make their village even damper that it is a present, with the likely hood of higher flood insurance to follow.
With regard to the drains/sewage etc, within the last year my immediate neighbor/the lady across the road and myself, plus a least a couple of other people in our road, have been faced with the unedifying results of blocked drains. There was also a lady (at a meeting) from another part of the village who had a similar problem (which our local councilor was going to sort out.)
Some time back there was a major problem at the top of Thorndon Ave, where small sewage pipes had been fitted in arror/or cost cutting measure, causing a most unsavoury smell. These problems should addressed before the proposed a hair brain scheme is entered into.
2. The use of the Industrial site for housing is probably a good idea, for the larger and larger juggernauts passing through 'The Village' destroying the inadequate road surfaces and in many cases the pavements. It seems it is now a 24 hour event, many of these vehicles and private cars use Station Road as a by pass for the A127 that gets gridlocked (during rush hour) just past 'The Village' on the way to London. They are also often exceeding the speed limit, but we no longer have a policeman to check them!!
Our roads are barely adequate for the existing traffic, how on earth would it copes with another 1500 households, plus cars, it beggars belief. Assuming that 50% are car users how would they exit/enter the Village, via CHilderditch Land (too small), via industrial site entrance, would almost result in chaos around the Railway Station, for more buses will be there also.

It should be pointed out that the Bus Company at present has to make arrangements to use Railway Property to turn around. It is also a fact the Council Garbage truck, can only enter Thorndon Ave one way as there is no room to maneuver.
The railway bridge would to strengthened and widened.
3. Rush hour travel by train is already a nightmare, increase in volume of passengers can only worsen matters, some arrangement would have to be sorted out with the Rail Company.
4. There are very few shops here, saints preserve us from an influx of Super Markets and the like of fast food outlets and betting shops, and the obvious decline; mainly due to littering - we seldom see the Road Sweeping Vehicle (A rare species hereabouts)
5. There no secondary school will one get build?, or more schools buses provided?
6. Our Broadband connection is probably the worst in the country, this needs to be rectified.
7. I have noticed that only West Horndon and Shenfield have been listed for use of Green Belt sites for this plan, which is contrary to Central Government Plans; Shenfield get parking spaces, West Horndon get 1500 houses, surely an anomaly here!!!!
The logic of this is that if you can release Green Belt (METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT in the case of West Horndon,) Then you could apply the same rule throughout Brentwood, (Or the country at large) thereby removing any objections to any development of any kind, would you with to setting a legal precedent, or are you just chancing your arm hoping to get this through unopposed. Whatever your answer it si truly an ill thought out concept, with no consideration of the impact it will have upon the residents and area, or environment.

CONCLUSION
There have previously been numerous plans to build houses hereabouts, almost all have faltered upon the fact that the area is a flood plain and subject to flooding at various times of the year (West Horndon and Bulphan). With regard to Bulphan IT would be stupid to increase their risk of flooding and litigation that may follow by using ill considered planning scheme.
The infrastructure would need to be put in place before any new houses are built also a renewal of existing services, the cost of this would be prohibitive with road widening etc for the present system just about copes, plus all the other items mentioned above.
Over recent times West Horndon has been ill served by Brentwood Council, they have tried to move u s on to become part of Havering or Billericay instead without success. Or will you now deny this? Since out Councillor Roy Boggis departed this life, our voice goes almost unheard in the Council Offices, our present representative we were told was on the Planning Committee, but claimed not to know anything of the plans for West Horndon, thus our Parish Council was suddenly confronted by this new planning scheme out of the blue.
Our police presence has been reduced to a phone, line, speeding traffic is increasing as there is now no check upon this.---A matter of time before a serious accident occurs. The street cleaning vehicle has become an endangered species, as are those who cut verges etc.
Is this purely Political Plan, for West Horndon has never really been favoured by Brentwood Council, almost an uwanted entity indeed, also by placing such a burden upon it would lose but a few votes come election time. Putting such a number of house elsewhere in the borough would certainly impact upon the vote.
Perhaps you may consider this cycnical view, but it could easily fir the abject planning scheme so far proposed, the next move I suspect will be a reduction in the number of houses, to give the impression of leniency, then a hurried and railroaded plan for the remainder.
Having voted in all types of elections for nearly 60 years am always dubious of the words of all political voices.

I would like to object to the proposed plans for West Horndon. I believe the number proposed is far too great, the existing residents would lose far too much. I think it is good to help those who are in need of housing but the lives and needs of those that live in the village should also be taken into account. It could create a sense of ill feeling between the old and new residents, not something anyone should gamble on.

I also think a large estate would be a gamble, with 20 0/0 if properties going to people on the housing list, the prospect of selling the remainder to individual residing landlords may not be that easy.

The industrial estate is I believe benificial to the village, some small business owners live in the village and some employ people from the village. There could be some changes regarding the HGVs having a different exit but other than that I believe that the estate could be improved and could be part of the village for years to come.

I'm sure I could go on forever giving reasons why the village should stay as it is, and you have probably heard most already, but the thing that I think is most important is fairness - treat everybody in the borough equally and spread the housing requirement equally throughout the borough. I'm sure that a number of different locations would give prospective tenants a much better choice and the distribution of these homes would be easier, people like to live near to their friends and families and they live all over the borough not just in West Horndon.

The proposed development would treble the size of this village and therefore would not be in accordance with the Forward in your Consultation Document that states, "it can do the most good and least harm". Since this enormous amount of building would effectively ruin the village at it stands and make it into a Town, all it shows is that no one has done any research in this whole affair.

It goes on to state "it should have good access to facilities, such as Healthcare. Parks, schools, shops and public transport. The facilities that we now enjoy are only sufficient for the 500 or so dwellings that we currently enjoy and would in no way be adequate for any further buildings.

The Forward also states that the Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected yet, you aim to remove the Metropolitan Green Belt which is the only thing separating us from the further sprawl of outer London.

No evidence is put forward as to the infrastructure that is proposed except to say that it might be forthcoming. I hope that this will include water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, and social care of which we are great need. Education for future Nursery, Junior and Senior schools and the ever present flood risk while Brentwood fail to protect us from the water that flows directly down from Brentwood on occasions and floods the A127, is then pumped out onto our surrounding fields and floods parts of the village.

The Borough Council is therefore attempting a consultation on a proposal which is at best poorly researched, and premature in terms of an evidence base. Too little regard has been given to the local community in which you hope to ease your housing requirements by foisting some 43% onto us.

West Horndon is a small village with a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has few shops, no secondary school and is 5 miles from any large centre. The primary school is full to capacity and there is a limited amount of days when we actually have a doctor on site. The railway station has already built the station platform to its full capacity and put on 12 compartment trains. Still the trains are difficult to board in the rush hour.

I urge you to carry out a consultation with the village in order to carry out a study of West Horndon focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport, you may then change your mind about building 1,500 extra houses here subjecting future populations to lack of transport besides a car and, any other facility that we have all come to rely on.

See attached

See attached

See Attachment

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

Proposed building of 1500 homes at West Horndon, Essex

I am writing this letter to register my opposition to the proposed scheme. My reasons are as follows:

1. Consultation
The scheme you have proposed has no substance. How can anyone give a reasoned response when most of the information is not available in the report? i.e. Its 'Pie in the Sky'
2. Infrastructure
a. Roads - It is obvious to anyone who visits the village that the roads are inadequate for the present needs and are badly maintained
b. Rail - The present rail service is fully used and at full capacity. I am told that there is only standing room on the trains to Fenchurch Street from 0630 hours
c. Buses - I know nothing about the bus services so I cannot give a view.
d. Health Services - At present there is an adequate Doctor and hospital presence locally. Additional population will overload the system. The aging population of West Horndon will progressively need health care and, as such, the present services will be stretched.
e. Sewage - The present sewer system can barely cope. When heavy rainfalls many gardens/houses are flooded with sewage.

3. Location
a. Village Status - The area has approximately 700 homes and the addition of another 1500 homes will, in effect, make it into a town [With no centre and no soul]
b. Metropolitan Green Belt - I find it impossible to understand why it is necessary to erode this protected area when there must be other areas available. WASN'T THE GREEN BELT CREATED TO STOP URBAN SPRAWL?
c. Flood Danger - I understand that the area of Metropolitan Green Belt designated is a 'Fail Safe' area to protect West Horndon from flooding i.e. It's a flood plain, Should remedial action be taken, one assumes that Bulpham will be flooded and not West Horndon!!!
d. Employment - It is quite likely that the new arrivals will seek employment in London, with no benefit to Brentwood.
e. Wildlife - I believe that large colonies of wildlife, birds, small animals etc will be effected by building on the Green Belt site.

4. Fairness
a. It seems a large number of homes have been allocated to West Horndon i.e. 43%
b. Based on the 'Local Plan'and the locations shown in the local paper, it would appear that not many homes are proposed north of Brentwood. WHY!!!
c. It also appears that NO HOMES are proposed in Shenfield!!! WHY!!! It will have Cross-Rail and, one assumes, a large influx of people wishing to live there.
d. Most villagers feel that West Horndon is being taken for a ride.

5. Travelers
a. The treat of having 'travellers sites' in the village has acted as a sort of blackmail. Travellers sites cannot be sites on flood plains, therefore let the council build on the industrial site and only leave flood plain sites so no travelers will come to the village. Shame on you for using this tactic!
b. NO information is being given with your proposals regarding the travelers sites. How can West Horndon feel that their future is in good hands when you are so devious?

6. Industrial Site
a. The nebulous plan to relocate the industrial site north of the A127 relies again on using a Green Belt designated area.
b. Are all the tenants from the industrial area agreeable to move?

Conclusion:
1. Should any of the proposed work be carried out it will be detrimental to the well being of the people you are supposed to represent, West Horndon residents
2. With such an un-informed, weak, and badly though out plan are you, fpr some reason, attempting to adopt. I cannot see that this has any professional input and, if it is so, political pressure must have been brought to bear. Are you doing your job or are you getting your constituents to do it for you?
3. It is generally accepted in the village that some houses will be built. The 'brownfield' site would seem to be the most suitable, but, saturation of that site will also bring problems.
4. If your previous record is anything to go by in West Horndon, the supporting infrastructure required for these houses, and to supplement the present population, will not be provided. Promise, Promise, Promise.

In the hope that you take account of my views, though I won't hold my breath

Yours truly,

See attached

See attached

See attached response.

See Attached

See attached letter

See attached

See attached

See attached response.

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.

My name is Steven Lee, I reside at West Horndon. Having lived in this lovely little village for 28 years in total, I am dismayed and disappointed at your proposals.

The village already has a poor infrastructure, the roads and pavements are in an appalling condition, the bus service is practically non existent. trying to get an appointment at the doctors surgery is a joke. The school is full up, so how you can possibly consider developing 1500 more houses in the village, I haven't a clue. Surely you have a duty of care to correct the above before you can even consider drowning the village and its identity as a village.

The village is a poor relation compared to the numerous other villages in the borough.

If there are to be more houses to be built, then let it be equitable throughout the borough, we take our 'share' and let rest of the borough take theirs.

Letter

As a resident of West Horndon we are rather alarmed to learn of the proposals put forward by Brentwood Council. While we are fully aware that people have to live somewhere, and there does appear to be scope for development to the area West of Thorndon Avenue as depicted in your 'Site Allocation Maps' denoted by 'Area 037'. But I cannot see the justification for 1500 new houses in our small village, increasing the population by somewhere in the region of 3000 to 4000 or more.

What shops will they use, when all we have got is one News Agent, a small general store, two hair dressers, a little cake shop, a fireplace shop and last of all but not least a 'Massage Parlour'.

If the proposal is to build more shops and possibly a new school, where will all of these units be sited? What about the Doctors Surgery, we think we have the very best surgery in the Brentwood area, the existing surgery will be too small to cater for the proposed increase.

Also what will happen to our very dismal transport links, bus service to/from Brentwood/Lakeside/ Basildon, will all these be improved to help keep motorists out of their cars. Train service can also be improved.

The other strategic allocation sites 020 and 021, the two Industrial Estates, several matters arise here:-

1. The cost to demolish and prepare the site.
2. The number of personnel working there will lose their jobs, some from West Horndon. What will happen to them?
3. The loss of Business Rates when the units are gone.
4. Road access and egress to the new sites
5. Junction Station Road and A128 a roundabout will DEFINETLY be required, it's bad enough now.

I sincerely hope the criteria mentioned above will be given the utmost consideration so that we don't finally end up with a system that has more against it than for it.

Email
Sir,
With reference to the above proposal, I must stress my concern regarding the number of properties proposed to be built. Whilst I realise that some development will take place, I do not think it is sustainable to build the number of properties proposed.
There are a number of points I would like to put forward as follows :-
1. If the Industrial site is to be demolished for the new houses, what is going to happen to the people that currently work there, some of them from West Horndon, they probably will not be able to relocate.
2. How does the Council plan to obtain the shortfall in rates from the Industrial Site when it is gone, our rates will inevitably need to increase to make up the deficit.
3. What about the flooding risk, I sincerely hope the increased flooding risk will be fully and expertly investigated, and not just pushed aside as 'a wait and see what happens scenario', as it will then be too late. The village has been flooded several times in the past, most recently in 2012, this is a major concern, and needs to be urgently addressed, and not forgotten.
4. When the Industrial Site has gone the only thing in our favour is the reduced number of lorries speeding through the village, and the general congestion they have caused in the past.
5. We will instead have an increased number of private cars going through the village, and the intersection of Station Road and the A128 is an absolute nightmare, in the past I personally have say there for up to five or more minutes waiting for a break in the traffic when turning right to go towards Orsett. I wrote to Brentwood Council and Essex County Council many years ago about this problem, requesting a roundabout to be installed, I was told that a roundabout could not be installed because the A128 was a major A road, what nonsense was that I replied, there a number of roundabouts on the A1 and many other A roads, now there is even one at the intersection of A128 and Middleton Hall Lane. So I feel a roundabout will DEFINITELY be needed at Station Road and the A128 to avoid further accidents. Roads in the village will also need to be upgraded. As well as the pavements, these are atrocious.
6. What about our transport links, the local bus service is virtually non existent, even at present if there were more buses people would make full use of them and not use there cars, the railway service will be pushed to the limit and will be overcrowded, they are already overcrowded and with the new residents working in London and elsewhere using the railway, the situation will be worse, these most certainly will need to be improved.
7. Facilities in the village will also need to be improved, we will need better medical and educational facilities and also shops, these will not be sustainable if there is no improvement.
8. I think the proposed development of Metropolitan Green Belt Land is extremely ill-advised as this will set a dangerous precedent, if this is allowed to happen it will not be long before we will be merged with Thurrock and Greater London, do we really want this, do we really need this?

I sincerely hope the Council will take note of all the above notes and also the notes submitted by other residents and fully think out all the proposals before going ahead like a bull in a china shop and proceed Willy Nilly with what they plan irrespective of the thoughts and well being of others.

WEST HORNDON

I am appalled at the poor quality Plan that has been published.

I am a resident of West Horndon.

My concern is for the ideas put forward about West Horndon.

Firstly, to develop the light industrial site from commercial to residential seems good.

To expand that concept to build on Green Belt is terrible, and very poorly thought out. A national precedent would be formed, thereby running rough-shod through that premis, a point that Brentwood Council says is to be protected.

There is no evidence in the report to consider. The report is therefore unprofessional.
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is not evidenced, neither is the Modelling Work report.

How can a report be anything other than rubbish, if it is incomplete? There is not even any information on how pedestrians in larger numbers would cross the road from the (currently) commercial area in safety.
There is no reference to proposals on how the railway system would cater for a larger village.
The percentage increase in size of the village is not fair compared to other areas of Brentwood borough. The proposal is trying to squeeze at 'quart into a pint pot'. The proposal for West Horndon is not feasible and not proven or evidenced.
I don't think this Plan will be advertised as it is embarrassing.

I am appalled at the poor quality Plan that has been published.

I am of West Horndon.

My concern is for the ideas put forward about West Horndon.

Firstly, to develop the light industrial site from commercial to residential seems good.

To expand that concept to build on Green Belt is astonishing, and very poorly thought out. A national precedent would be formed, thereby running rough-shod through that premis, a point that Brentwood Council says is not for negotiation.

There is no evidence in the report to consider. The report is therefore unprofessional.
The report shows:
Evidence
Infrastructure Delivery Plan (forthcoming)
Modelling work (forthcoming)
Site Analysis/pro formas

How can a report be anything other than rubbish, if it is incomplete? There is not even any information on how pedestrians in greater numbers would cross the road from the (currently) commercial area in safety.
There is no reference to proposals on how the railway system would cater for a larger village.
The percentage increase in size of the village is not a fair compared to other areas of Brentwood borough. The proposal is trying to squeeze at 'quart into a pint pot'. The proposal for West Horndon is not feasible and not proven or evidenced.
It will be interesting to see if Brentwood Council would advertise their expertise in forming this Plan. I don't think it would happen as the Plan is embarrassing.

See Attached.