I strongly object to the proposed plan to build 1500 homes in West Horndon. This would treble the size of the village and change the character of the whole area. Why are we getting nearly 50% (43%) of the total number of the houses in the whole of the borough and why is the north of the borough not getting any??

As we have a station I believe this so called plus for housing here but if some of the new people are supposed to work or spend in the borough this is not possible from West Horndon Station. The railway station provides a commuter route into London but has limited additional capacity. The railway does not cater for the important local journeys, such as into Brentwood it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough.It does not support travel within the Borough. As there is not a good bus service into Brentwood this is not feasible. Even if new bus services were introduced this would impact further on the A128 where current levels of traffic are already close to breaking point and the A127 which is at a standstill most mornings towards London with heavy traffic going towards Southend so any extra vehicles from the 1500 houses could seriously risk a grid lock situation unless the A127 could be widened at a massive cost.

We are also being asked to comment on a major proposal having been presented with only an outline of what is proposed. It is not known therefore what benefits,if any, there might be for the village, or how the scheme might seek to mitigate against the many harmful impacts. There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through the village. Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits. There is no explanation why West Horndon, as a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes.

With the council's track record of not repairing roads or pavements. (Many of the pavements are very dangerous to walk on) or of the reduced amenities we have in the village we are very suspicious of getting any infrastructure that will maintain this level of housing. The sewerage is at capacity and many people get blocked drains and sewage etc flowing out over their gardens, drives etc. The preferred options document makes reference to an evidence base and infrastructure but is only able to say that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming" How can we comment on this? National guidance state that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, health, social care, education, and flood risk and its ability to meet forecast demands. This has not been done.

There us no evidence that the council has undertaken a flood risk. The village flooded in 1958, 1981 and most recently in 2012. I believe that the green belt earmarked for some of the housing acts as drainage to stop the village from flooding and if built on will increase the risk to the village and I believe Bulphan. A further flood alleviation scheme will increase risk to the south of the railway line and also will incur massive costs. There will be a knock on effect.

Whether new development can be proved to be sustainable is central to planning policy. Is this proposal sustainable - ensuring that better lives for ourselves doesn't mean worse lives in the future generations. I believe an essential requirement is that new home owners will not be over dependent on the car for journeys to work, school, shops, leisure activities and other services and amenities and I believe that in West Horndon they would be wholly reliant on their cars. West Horndon is a small village of less than 1900 people with a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has few shops, no secondary school and is remote from the larger centres of Brentwood, Basildon and Upminster. The primary school is at full capacity. There is a three day wait to see a doctor and there is an infrequent bus service.If residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location. It is possible that improvements could be made to the infrastructure and public transport and new local facilities provided but given the major scale of the proposed development such measures will not overcome the fact that West Horndon is to a genuinely sustainable location.

West Horndon is a small lower density settlement surrounded by open countryside. The village is characterised by larger plots backing onto open fields. A wide variety of wildlife can be seen in and around the village. Birds such as the Dunnock, Thrush Finch, Nightingale, Skylark, Kestrel, Buzzard, Tawny Owl and so on. Butterflies such as Small Blue, Red Admiral, Wall Brown. The water Vole Great Crested Newts and Pipestrelle Bats. The construction of 1500 homes on the edge of the village, and the consequence loss of a large expanse of open countryside, will destroy its open setting and rural character. No consideration has been given to wildlife and bio-diversity issues.

The proposals are not clear on the mix and proportion of land uses, with what appears to be a leaning towards an almost wholly residential scheme. There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through the residential streets of the village. Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic overlooks back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

TRAVELLERS

I believe that it is also proposed to put travellers sites here too. As Travellers are not allowed to be put on flood plain land - Surely this rules West Horndon out. Also the financial effect this would have on our homes. I believe Basildon Council have reduced council tax on houses which were close to the Crays Hill Travellers sites but they have also lost £100,000 off their house prices. How is Brentwood Council going to respond to this please.

National guidance states that "Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of developments that would be expected of the are, responding to local character and being visually attractive" A local planning authority should also submit a plan for examination which is sound in respect of how it is prepared, whether proposals are properly justified, whether it can be delivered, and whether it is consistent with national policy. Given the level and extent of the concerns as set out above the plan clearly has fundamental shortcomings. It is not therefore sound or robust. The borough Council in consultation with the village is urged to carry out a study of West Horndon, focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport. Only after this is carried out can the plan be said to be responding to the needs of the local community.

Please rethink putting so many new homes in West Horndon and spoiling it for future generations. People who live in West Horndon have chosen a village location not a town.

I wish to comment and reject the Council's preferred choice for development (Alternative Option 2)
Firstly I object to the revised target of 3500 new dwellings, a number that can only be achieved by building on green belt land. By the Council's own admission this is greater than suggested in the earlier East of England plan. A smaller number of dwellings could be accommodated by using town centre and brownfield sites.

The proposal to build 1500 new dwellings at West Horndon will completely alter the nature of the area, and can only be achieved by reducing land in the metropolitan green belt. This land is valuable both as green space and in ensuring that a barrier of land exists between communities such as West Horndon and the outer edges of London. Any reduction in green belt land increases the chances of parts of the borough becoming consumed within an enlarged conurbation.

I think it is an absolute joke that a plan has been drawn up to build such a large volume of houses in such a small area. The facilities in the area can only just about manage with the current level of people in the village. The school and doctors are at full capacity. That is the key point that the facilities in the village are already stretched and there has been no plan shared on improving them.
The second point is that the village is not very well maintained at the moment with poor quality roads and footpaths, how will the council maintain them with a minimum addition of 1,500 people?

I understand there is a requirement to build homes and that's why I agree with LDP 021. This plan will bring advantages to the village such as reducing the ridiculous amount of large commercial vehicles that drive through the village and make the lanes less dangerous. Even if 250 homes were to be built there would still be a need to improve the facilities as the current setup would not be feasible.
I also do not agree with the sheer number of gypsy plots that have been assigned to be built in West Horndon. Surely these should be more evenly distributed over the whole of Brentwood council. There is already a gypsy plot approximately 1 mile away from West Horndon on St Mary's Lane going towards Upminster. How the growth of the gypsy plots will be controlled also concerns me.

See attached

West Horndon proposed development

I appreciate that Brentwood Council have to find land for 3000 homes to accommodate the government guide lines. The 500 homes proposed for West Horndon Industrial Estate is fee sable due to the Industrial site getting bigger wanting a more desirable location for units and transport. West Horndon has approximately 800 homes many families living their for years. The 1000 homes which you propose is in green belt land which floods occasionally when ditches overflow with heavy rain or A127 road floods. I know this because I live at the top end of Thorndon Ave and our Gardens and fields at back of us are under water. You are proposing a 200% increase in our village also the whole of Brentwood has many villages with green belt land around them ,how come they are not getting there share and you want to put 43% of your new homes in West Horndon .Having looked at the proposed site for a Gypsy site at Thorndon Park A127 do you honestly believe people will want to buy a new home in view of a Gypsy site or do you think people will want to visit Thorndon Park and leave there cars next to a Gypsy site ,even though I know Romany Gypsy's clean and trustworthy there are a lot of other travellers that are not. The slip road on the flyover at A127 going to Basildon Southend you have just given permission for a Boot sale every week why couldn't the Gypsy camp go there instead of next to a park .I'm sure they would prefer it because they like being on there own. With all the villages in Brentwood are they having Gypsy sites and 1500 homes built destroying the environment and a village that has been here since Henry the 8th.

West Horndon planning - save the green belt

I am writing in connection to the local planning development plan in Brentwood and particularly concerning West Horndon.

I live at [house number and street name], West Horndon, [post code] and I am a very concerned resident to hear that part of the plan is to build on Green Belt Land here in West Horndon. While I am all for progress I am hugely against this and urge you to reconsider urgently for the following reasons.

- On a personal note much of the reason we moved to West Horndon was to live within a village environment (not a town) for my family to enjoy West Horndon's landscape. Before moving to West Horndon some 5 years ago we researched whether the farm land at the back of our garden (037) was Green Belt believing this to be safe from any development. Please see picture WH1 attached of our current view from my home which was the No.1 reason for moving here in the first place. Please do not destroy this.

- On a similar note but worth a separate point is to highlight one of your own key points; you say correctly that "your aim is to protect the green belt" - how is this the case when considering building upon it?? You have to make a stand now otherwise what will be left for future generations.

- On a practical point I'm sure your aware of the flooding that occurs on this farm land most winters just the other side of my garden fence in the potential house build area (037). See pic WH2. This is a shot of the after effect of a stream which flows from west to east across the farm. Of course not desirable for building.

- Again I am keen on progress in West Horndon but 43% of the entire boroughs quota is far too weighted on West Horndon and hugely confusing that this is even being considered seriously?

In conclusion we are vehemently against any development on green belt land and believe there are other options in other towns within Brentwood without destroying England's green and pleasant land.

See attached

I and my partner are writing in response to the proposed Local Development Plan with regards to the detrimental affect it will have on the village of West Horndon. We feel the village will be lost by being swallowed up with the construction of such a large amount (up to 1500) of homes. We do understand that houses have to be built and development has to take place to accommodate people. Our children will need somewhere to live in the future as well, but to use Metropolitan Green Belt land is wrong and goes against the idea of the land being protected in the first place.

The proposal means West Horndon could take around 43% of the borough's new homes, why such a large percentage? You seem to be planning, even in contingency, to earmark anywhere around West Horndon. This is a large borough and we can see other major infrastructure being developed (Cross Rail) but not being fully utilised. Basically, why isn't all of the Borough sharing the burden.

It is well documented that the village suffers from continual industrial traffic, noise and pollution, and the only real transport infrastructure in place is the railway station. Therefore the idea of the current industrial site being used for housing (500) seems a very good idea, and means the quality of life would improve for West Horndon villagers as well as taking some of the housing development required.

We also have concerns regarding flood risk to the local area and what the planning team proposed to do to reduce it.

The village doesn't have very good links (walking, cycling) to any sizeable park within the Borough, even though we live so close to Thorndon South Park. If any proposed development does take place there must be an undertaking to improve this situation for the families of West Horndon.

1. My primary objection is use of green belt land which I feel is inappropriate, given the limited amount of open spaces around the village. I moved to West Horndon because of the feel of open spaces, having lived in very built up areas before. I also understand that it is Government policy that exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of green belt land and I believe they recently expanded on this by saying that demand for housing is unlikely to be good reason enough to use green belt land.

2. I do not feel that West Horndon can cope with an influx of such a huge amount of dwellings. There is already considerable traffic going through the village both during the day and in the evenings. Our doctor's surgery is an off-shoot of the surgery in South Ockenden and as such has very limited opening hours - eg it is now closed on Tuesday afternoons to allow the doctors to spend more time at Ockenden. It is hard enough as it is to get an appointment - and I cannot see how it would cope with extra people living in the village. We are not very well served by public transport in the village. There is an infrequent bus service which does not run on a Sunday and you really need a car here, thus adding to the amount of traffic. The railway station only serves routes to London or to Southend etc, and does not cover getting around the Borough, eg to Brentwood.

3. Reverting back to my point about traffic in the village, the surrounding roads would be hard pressed to cope with additional cars. The A127 is always very busy, particularly during peak hours, with frequent traffic queues and hold-ups and with additional cars, this will impact also onto the A128.

4. West Horndon, according to the Environment Agency website is shown to be at risk of flooding and indeed as recently as 2012 there was flooding in the village. Has the Council carried out any assessment of the flood risk?

5. The scale of the proposed development by almost trebling the size of the village would have the effect of creating a new area which could no longer be classed as a village. I do not feel the Council has properly explained why West Horndon should accept such a large amount of new dwellings and why the Council deem it a suitable site for such a large development. From what I have read and heard, the Council haven't assessed whether West Horndon has the necessary infrastructure for such an increase in its size, eg utilities, telecoms (we have the slowest broadband here), waste etc etc.

6. There is also no clear indication in the outline proposals of where the travellers sites will be and this is also a concern.

See attached

See attached

We are writing to register our strong disagreement with the proposed development in our village. We understand that the development will consist of 1500 new homes which will increase the size of the village threefold and significantly change its character. We moved here in 1999 specifically because we wanted to enjoy a more tranquil and rural environment which is very important to us in our retirement but this development will result in something akin to a "New Town" which has very different qualities.

We understand that this proposal satisfies over 40% of the Borough's requirements for the next 20 years and we do not understand why West Horndon is being singled out in this way. A more proportionate approach would be for a larger number of other locations in the Borough accept smaller developments.

Our main concerns centre on the infrastructure that would be needed to support such a large community-details of which have not materialised. It is unacceptable that consultation is being completed without such important information and it will be impossible to give considered feedback with so little information.

Whilst the current services such as public transport, access to GP and healthcare and local shops are already stretched, we are prepared to accept this situation when it is accompanied by the more positive aspects of rural life. The major roads around West Horndon are already full during peak commuter times so the potential impact of a further 1500 cars trying to join them would simply gridlock the village.

The main route via the lanes includes a railway bridge on a bend which would not be able to cater for increases in traffic of this magnitude. We cannot envisage how this particular stretch of road could be upgraded sufficiently.

Although C2C provide an excellent service into Fenchurch Street, the trains are completely full during the rush hour and again adding a further potential 1500 passengers would decimate the service for residents of West Horndon as well as those living further into London. We do not believe there is capacity for additional trains to run therefore people will not be able to get on the train.

Health care provision is very important to us and with many residents of West Horndon being of an older generation, any reduction in service could be critical. In the event that local GP's are not forthcoming, we will be forced to take to the roads and overstretched public transport to find such services.

We understand that much of the development will be on green belt land again this will completely change our environment. We have taken a very active role in restoring and maintaining the green spaces around the village and to work so hard for this benefit whilst great swathes of it are taken without proper consideration and consultation with the local community is unacceptable.

We would summarise our objections as follows:
We have been given insufficient information to have a meaningful consultation and therefore the council has failed to follow government guidelines on planning, in the absence of such information, we have grave concerns over whether a proper and extensive assessment has been carried out on behalf of West Horndon residents.

We are concerned that West Horndon has been singled out as an easy solution to the entire Borough's housing needs for many years to come .

We believe the environment of village will be significantly damaged by the loss of green belt land and the stress that will be placed on local transport and road links.
Access to sufficient healthcare services for the many people of our age group in West Horndon could be critically undermined.

We would strongly urge you to carry out a proper study of these proposals and demonstrate clearly and fairly how the community as a whole will benefit. At this point, we would be in a position to carry out meaningful consultation.

I am writing to you to oppose the major development of 1500 new homes within West Horndon CP4 and the proposed traveller sites DM28. This is for the following reasons:

Impact on our chosen life
We moved to the village in 2004, being our second home and one we planned to put work into to create a family home, which we completed in 2011. We see that a village is a safe, happy and close knit community within which to raise a family alongside trusting neighbours where everyone knows everyone. Building 1500 more homes is going to destroy the village life and loose the history of the village forever and the life we chose for our family. I don't see how the Borough council has the right to do this to our lives, the one we choose and strive to achieve as hard working citizens. We will no longer live in a close knit community where we know our children will be safe. We will no longer know everyone in the area. The number of cars on our local roads will treble making the area very unsafe for our children to play as they do now. How do you have the right to change our village to a town/city this is not why we moved here.

Building on Metropolitan Green Belt
I thought that "the government attaches great importance to Green Belts to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open"

The larger part of the allocation is within green belt! I thought this was inappropriate and harmful by definition of the National Planning Guidance.
The government recently clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss.

Building on Green Belt is unacceptable and again destroying the reasons why we live here in the first place.

It is one rule for the government and a different rule for everyone else. If a member of the public just wants an extension or buy a piece of green belt to build a house it is a no go. However the government can simply put up 1500 homes where ever they like.

Impact on our property value
At the beginning of the year my neighbour said she wanted to move house, this was the ideal opportunity for us to move next door and complete another restoration project on a bigger property. We put our property on the market and we had steady viewings over the month but then my neighbour found a property to move to and had to move fast, there was cash buyer interested so she took their offer. We were always planning to stay within the village so we took our property off the market. We are now currently back on the market because of this development and gypsy site, at a lower price (£10K Less that the original valuation) as advised by the estate agent to tempt viewings under the current situation with this development notice going on. Since this planning development news and the possible traveller site news has come about we have had no interest at all in our property from perspective buyers! We have already dropped the price of our property £10k from the original valuation. What right does the government have to do something so detrimental to the value of our properties? We have put so much hard work, money, time and effort in to bettering ourselves and the future of our children's upbringing. All this will be taken away because of this housing and traveller allocation. Will we be compensated for the loss in the value of our properties?

The decision to destroy our village has obviously been made by someone who is not going to be directly affected by the decision they were making.

Impact of the Traveller sites
We don't have to look too far a field to see the impacts of the traveller sites. Buckles Lane in South Ockendon and Dale Farm Basildon are very close to home and are prime examples of what happens when the allocation of Traveller sites are located too close to open space/green belt. They soon spread into the open spaces around them with no regards to what they are doing to the land, fly tipping and general poor hygiene and disrespect for the countryside. West Horndon is not the place for traveller sites there is too much opportunity for them to take advantage of the open spaces and the way the borough are treating us residents at the moment i am sure they will have no objection to their expansion once there in! I really dont see how you expect to sell new properties along side a traveller site.

This too will have an impact on our family lives and the sociable aspect of the village as it stands today. It just will not exist anymore.

So too will it devalue our properties, are we going to be compensated for the change in value? Its already having a affect on us (as we cannot sell) and its not even here yet! We will possibly never be able to sell our properties and the whole area may become a much lower grade town with very poor community standards.

Impact on the Countryside and setting of the village.
West Horndon is a small low density settlement surrounded by countryside and the majority of which backing onto open countryside. We do not have to go far to encounter some of the extraordinary wildlife that surrounds us, Dunnock, Skylark, Kestrel, Tawny Owl, unusual butterflies and bats to name a few. All of the above are not found within towns as so will all vacate once development starts destroying their homes and the bio-diversity they bring. No consideration has been given to this!

Impact on roads and junctions
Pulling out of Thorndon Avenue onto station lane can be detrimental at the best of times without the increase in traffic from these 1500 new homes. There have been numerous occasions of near misses at this junction. On the Thorndon Avenue turning you cannot see properly around the corner because of the flats situated on the corner of the junction.

The condition of the roads are unsuitable for the planned increase in traffic. They are full of pot holes and far too narrow and of very poor upkeep to carry the increase in traffic.

At two locations along St Marys lane there are constant water seepages from underground which breaks through the road. I can only assume this is the water pipes underground. It creates huge puddles which the cars skate across causing collision issues. Several times a year these are attempted to be fixed without any success.

The junction or Station road and the A128 is always busy as it is. During rush hour times you can easily wait 10 minutes to be able to pull out onto the A128. The traffic starts to tail back along station road. This junction is already dangerous with the current flow of traffic both pull out and pulling into the village. At times I've felt like a sitting duck waiting to pull into station road which is very unnerving with children in the car. There has been many fatal accidents on this stretch of the A128 and this is going to increase the risk and completely goes against health and safety on this highway.

The proposed number of homes will also have a pollutant effect on the village's surroundings and ourselves as this will essentially mean at least another 3000 cars within the area.

Infrastructure
The infrastructure of West Horndon could not cope with an extra 1500 homes. The roads, station, bus service, schools, doctor surgery, play areas, shops, sewage, electricity supply are already not adequate enough. This comes at a time of massive cut backs from the government and I am sure the government will not throw money at this to get it right only giving the bare minimum. Or worse making the building contractor to supply the infrastructure when all they care about is profits and bottom line spending. This I am afraid to say is a recipe for a disaster for the local people, with the building contractors and MP's living in an unaffected area.

Flood Risk
Only on Christmas day 2012 the village was flooded and almost cut off. Many homes along Cardogan Avenue, St Marys Lane and Thorndon Ave were bailing out and the entrance to the church came very close. The industrial estate also flooded. So how on earth can you propose to put new homes within the village on our flood plains? The village also flooded in 1958 and 1981 and so Christmas day was by no means a first. Surely this is increasing the risk of flooding creating more concrete cities, this could create a massive safety risk by flooding the railway line. This too will have an impact on the property value and also our insurance premiums so we will be paying the price for this development. This to me does not sound like an ideal place to build a new development, I am sure the engineers and architects will say its ok to earn themselves lots of money but we will be left with the floods. I am also lead to believe we rely on a pumping station to keeping West Horndon from flooding. This would need a serious revamp.

Loss of local employment
Losing the industrial estate will mean a loss of local employment opportunities. It is not easy getting in and out of the village if you do not drive due to the current bus timetable and the train connection which although is C2C is still infrequent. So there will be possibly 4500 more people living in West Horndon and less jobs. This is just ridiculous this is going to contribute to more crime and again a lowering of the standard of living in the area with many people relying on benefits.

In conclusion I don't see how West Horndon has been pin pointed to take 43% of the boroughs allocation. Going on stats from 2011 Brentwood Borough population was 73,800 and West Horndon 1,482 of this. Having said all the above yes there is an argument that the country is growing but why not let each area grow as a percentage so not the change the village way of life. If you took an average of 3 people per home there is roughly 25,000 homes in Brentwood Borough and 500 in West Horndon. This equates to West Horndon making up 2% of the boroughs population, West Horndon should only take its fair percentage (2%) of the new housing. The new housing total for Brentwood borough is roughly 3500 so West Horndon should take its fair share (2%) 70 new houses?

No consideration has been given to the local residents who have chosen a village location. There are several detrimental effects to this proposed development for ourselves and the future generations destroying life as we know it and love it.
I hope these issues are considered seriously.

West Horndon is a small village community and the preferred option will be a major development alongside it which will triple the size of the village and would change its character. The village has 750 properties and the proposal is to add 1,500 additional dwellings. I disagree, this is too many dwellings and will not benefit the village but only the developers. It will leave the borough council and village with many problems to sort out and pay for in the future.

The Doomsday book mentions the village of West Horndon. The scale of the development proposed is major and disproportionate, and does not seem to enhance the village but create an new separate village to one side.

An infrastructure delivery plan and flood risk assessment needs to be carried out before deciding to build any new dwellings in West Horndon. The public transport to the rest of the borough is poor and unreliable. The primary school is at full capacity and there is no secondary school in the village. The doctors surgery is at full capacity and takes several days to get an appointment. It would be good if additional resources could be made available to have the doctors surgery open before 9am and after5pm and on Saturdays. The broadband is poor and it would be good, essential indeed to have fibre optic broadband available in the village. We don't have a dentist, an optician, a chiropractor or a podiatrist. The village probably doesn't need permanent health care practitioners beyond a doctors, but it would be good to have easy available access to these. Especially for the older community.

The consultation exercise on a draft, premature proposal which needs more evidence before we can really feel properly consulted upon.

This plan and the consultation process feels to me to be done from the Council and planners down to the local residents of West Horndon. The local community needs and wishes need to be heard and acknowledged. I do not want building to take place on the proposed plot of 037. It is green belt and the only boundary to is the A127.

If West Horndon needs to accept additional properties in the village they should be built on brown field areas such as the West Horndon Industrial Estate. Other areas in the village are Elliott's night club former plot. and possibly Timmermam's nursery nearby on the 127. Development should be low density and tasteful in keeping with the village.

Other locations for development to be considered are: Hutton Industrial Estate, Waits Way Industrial Estate, Ingatestone garden centre. Also for north of the borough groups of houses with independent sewage system could be built, such as those in St Marys Lane.

I do not support building on metropolitan green belt, but if green belt land in West Horndon needs to have building then I might agree to building along Station Road if the park was extended behind the dwellings to provide a boundary. The extended and improved park would provide safe areas for walking in the dark winter evenings and could provide an exceptional benefit the village.

To enhance West Horndon it would also need a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; additional money and resources to allow the village hall to run classes and events after work hours; a completely upgraded bus service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood to access opticians, dentists, etc; the doctors surgery would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and on Saturdays.

The village is made up of a low density housing and surrounded by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years with oil seed rape, wheat and peas and provide food for the UK. Building on that green belt will reduce the land available for wildlife, loss of ancient hedgerows and borders, and will destroy the rural character of the village.

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 were unable to give further information on the dwellings proposed and we would like an opportunity to feed into this. Delivery times to proposed new retail units will need to be limited to avoid noise pollution to existing and new properties on sites 020 and 021. new properties along existing houses should be kept low so as to avoid over looking gardens that are currently not over looked.

The 127 and 128 roads are already unable to cope with the morning and evening commuters. I am sure the developers will not pay to build an extra lane and remove several homes to help solve the problem. The junction at Station Road and the 128 would need to be redesigned to accept traffic crossing the A128 and will probably need traffic lights or a major roundabout. St Mary's lane is windy and narrow and has several small stone bridges. A modern cement bridge would be ugly and would not enhance the village.

The junction at the station, the industrial estate and village is dangerous. The proposed low level roundabout at the junction (which would then be a junction for 5 major exits) is insufficient and dangerous for children crossing the road to and from the school bus.

The proposal suggests that the remaining industrial estate and the new dwellings share the same roads which is not safe for children and the older generation.

The pedestrian entrance to the railway station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath.

The bus stop is beside the waste collection amenity site for the borough and the car access area doubles up as the bus stop.

Driving from the 127 to the village is dangerous as the exits are inadequate.

Plot 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It has had severe flooding in 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. Bulphan and West Horndon are at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency's web site show. Flood prevention in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

Sites 020 and 021 are brownfield sites and are currently employment land. It is necessary that existing businesses will be helped to relocate to near by sites and that the offer is attractive enough to avoid them moving to outside the borough.

Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies, however this plan is still very draft and has lots of gaps to be filled. For example around flooding, public and road transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, rail. These need to be carried out to make the proposal robust and comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon in order to accurately calculate whether its plans are realistically affordable. It is better and easier to find out before any dwellings are built.

I am opposed to the Draft Plan to build 1500 new houses in West Horndon for a variety of reasons:

Firstly, the issue of flooding, I believe that no proper flood assessment has taken place despite the fact that The Environment Agency's web site shows West Horndon to be at risk of flooding. This was borne out on Christmas Day last year when a number of properties in the village were indeed flooded. I believe that building an extensive housing development on green belt land will reduce the capacity of this land to absorb excess water and so the risk of flooding will become greater. Although the provision of a flood alleviation scheme was mentioned, where do you propose to put the excess water? If it is pumped under the railway line surely it will just flood Bulphan instead. I doubt if it is legal to solve one's own flood management problems by transferring them to another authority, it most definitely isn't ethical.

Secondly, I am concerned that the local road and rail networks will be unable to cope with the increased demand. Our local main roads A127 & A128 are already overcrowded and St. Mary's Lane that links West Horndon to Upminster is a twisty road with some dangerous blind bends that has claimed the life of some of our residents in the past, I dread to think what it would be like with even more traffic on it. During peak times our local trains are already overcrowded and I am not sure if the line has the capacity to increase provision. Bearing in mind that most residents will need to commute to work will put a great strain on the transport system, especially as I suspect much of this commuting will be by means of private cars due to infrequent trains and buses.

Thirdly, I am concerned that the proposal indicates that Green Belt Land will be built upon. If one area of Green Belt land is built upon this sets a precedent that any part of the green belt may be built upon opening up the real possibility of urban sprawl. I cannot believe this will create a healthy environment for anyone to live in.

Many of the residents actively chose to live in West Horndon as they appreciated a semi -rural, village location, this will be lost if 1500 houses are built as the size of the village will be trebled. What effect will this have on crime rates I wonder?
Whilst it is unreasonable to suggest that no new houses should be built in West Horndon a more modest amount (perhaps somewhere between 300-500 houses) may be much more acceptable, especially if it was a phased development over a number of years. I understand that there are other sites that could be developed within the borough that currently have not even been considered e.g. Hutton industrial estate. I do not doubt that Brentwood Council needs to find a substantial number of new homes but to build almost half of them in West Horndon seems unfair.

In conclusion it seems to me that residents are asked to comment on a major proposal without being given the full facts. Have the risks to West Horndon really been fully evaluated and how might problems be overcome? Until such time that proper assessments have been made and viable, sustainable plans have been made to overcome the difficulties made by such a building development I will remain opposed to such a scheme.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development under the Local Development Plan for West Horndon. This incredibly unfair document appears to have been cobbled together without actually assessing whether West Horndon is capable of this development for the reasons stated below and I wish to object to the Local Development Plan for these reasons.;

1. Major Development and West Horndon; This development would increase our village by approximately 300%, most people live in the village because it is just that, a VILLAGE, not a small town, we have been given scant information as to how these houses will be built and what type of housing they are, only that you are planning to build on flood plains and greenbelt land, how can the village as a whole possibly make an informed decision when the plans are so outline? Why was West Horndon chosen to take 43% of the total required plan when it is the least suited to do so, Ingatestone has far more amenities and facilities and would be far better suited than our little village, why was it chosen over there? National Guidelines state that Local planning authorities should assess the quality and capacity infrastructure, Water Supply, Waste Water and its treatment, Energy including Heat, telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, and flood risk, none of this has been carried out, or if it has, it has not been made available to the residents. In light of this as a resident I can only see a reduction in quality of life. This proposal has been poorly put forward and is ill-conceived and has not been investigated on the scale it should have been before putting before the residents for a decision

2. Neighbourhood Planning and Localism; The NPP framework (National Planning Policy) states that local planning authorities should engage all affected sections of the community in the development of local plans and in the deciosns made in Planning, and should facilitate neighbourhood planning, apart from roadhsows, which some the head of planning didn't bother to turn up, giving very sketchy details there has been no engagement and this plan has been forced upon us by Brentwood Council

3. Metropolitan Green Belt; The National Planning Policy framework puts great importance on Green Belts to prevent Urban Sprawl, Housing is not an exceptional circumstance to destroy our green belt as far as the Government is concerned, why is it for Brentwood Council? There are so many more options within the Borough for development NOT on greenbelt, why is West Horndon being victimised?

4. Is West Horndon a sustainable Location? ; At pesent, there are crowded rush hour trains, quite often commuters boarding at West Horndon do not get seats in personal correspondence with C2C they have stated they have no plans to increase capacity, in fact the current rolling stock would not allow for an increase, there is a very limited bus service, very few shops, the school is at capacity, it takes at least 3 days to get an appointment with the Doctor, longer if you work commuter hours, the trains that do run do not run within the borough travel within the borough is unsupported, considering the plan makes great propaganda of the Crossrail, this has no benefits to West Horndon.

5. West Horndon is surrounded by countryside, I alone in my Garden have visiting Pipestrelle Bats, Dragonflys, Great Crested Newts, Grass snakes, Pheasants, Dunnock, Thrush, Finch, along with a selection of Tits, blackbirds etc, the surrounding areas also host Kestrel, Buzzard, Tawny Owl, Water Vole, and many butterflies and insects. Yet the Planning Committee have not carried out appropriate studies in Wildlife and habitat protection, just stating that no issues were envisaged! On whose expert opinion was this decided? Why has no consideration into biodiversity and wildlife issues?

6. Flood Risk; The strategic allocation proposes a development land extending to 25 hectares, the village was flooded in 1958, 1981, and 2012, it appears from the LDP that no assessment of drainage has been carried out, when the Environment Agency show West Horndon and Bulphan at risk of flooding. Surely this should have been done at a very early stage before valuable Borough resourses were wasted writing the Local Development Plan?

7. Loss of Employment and Employment Land ; From Brentwood Councils own Emplyment Land Review, this confirms that Horndon Industrial Estate is by far the most valuable employer area in the Borough, and is suitable for protection, why would the Borough risk the lost of Jobs and Companies in moving this area? We should be looking at improving infrastructure to and from the industrial estate not destroying it. The existing companies pay fairly low rent on older buildings, in moving to new ones there would be a great risk of increased costs forcing the companies to look elsewhere outside of the Borough

West Horndon is a nice small happy community, why are Brentwood Borough Council seeking to spoil this?

please see atttached documents

I'm writing to express my deep concerns over the Council's Local Development Plan which has identified West Horndon as an area for 'significant growth'. West Horndon is a small village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself; the Ward has no more than 701 homes. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and completely change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment.

The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the LDP's plans being a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station but the station platform has already been extended and C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, and no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use. The trains are already busy leaving West Horndon at rush hour. The station has only 1 platform going into London. With so many new people to the village and quite probably using the trains, the safety of passengers piling onto one platform for trains that run at best, every 15 minutes would be questionable.

The LDP also talks about the aim to increase employment within Brentwood and once someone steps on the West Horndon line they immediately leave the borough and take their money and income elsewhere. We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly from West Horndon and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen this road any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only exacerbate the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. It can sometimes take 30-45 minutes to reach Brentwood and with such a poor bus service connecting us to Brentwood many residents shop elsewhere or travel by train to other towns and again leave the borough. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

Our secondary school children have no choice but to attend schools across Brentwood, by increasing the number of houses in this village you are asking secondary schools to increase their intake or find places for our children in locations beyond reasonable travelling distances. They have to travel by bus through Ingrave at the moment and more children will only increase the already heavy traffic through this area.

The local Primary school is already at full capacity and many of the families in the village moved to the village in order to give their children a more family centred schooling experience. Almost all of the children walk to school and there are very strong links between the families and accountability between them and the school. It is the reason most of our family have moved to the village. Trebling the size of the village would most definitely destroy this level of accountability. This is the character of West Horndon and I fear this level of development would ruin this.

Infrastructure will not be in place before the build starts and the LDP does not make it clear how this will appear or what will be provided. For the local Primary school this means having no choice but to take new children that move into the area before any funds and infrastructure can be put into place to expand it. There is a risk current families in the village will therefore not be able to get their children a place at the local school if they happen to live further from the school than the new houses. How is this fair? Without the sale of houses and a clearer picture of numbers of children it will be impossible for the council to clearly see what level of development the school will need. This will impact upon the education of our own children because class sizes will increase and teaching space will be reduced. Teachers will have no choice but to divide their attention between more children and this will inevitably affect the quality of teaching our children receive. No guarantees have been made to protect this or the future children who the school are forced to take because other local schools cannot accommodate them. Or families will have to travel to other local schools, which defeats the idea that most if not all the children walk to school and will only increase the level of traffic through Station Road.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctors appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood, a long journey during rush hour or roadworks particularly if it is an emergency. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? By trebling the size of the village the doctors surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increase of these numbers. No plans have been made available to show how this will improve. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is frankly unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 and A128 are already inadequate to deal with more traffic, which 1500 would certainly provide. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen the road. With 1500 homes being built in the village I seriously worry about the possibility of increased accidents and increased pollution and damage to the environment caused by more cars sitting in traffic jams on these already busy roads.

I am also very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. The fields above this area act as a soak for the waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which in itself has recently with heavy rain flooded many times (Removing the threat of flooding for many residents east of these field). Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The NPPF makes it very clear that no development should in any way impact upon other areas, which it most surely would. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. The Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land extending 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents backing onto these areas. Many residents including my parents who moved in this year in June are finding it extremely difficult to get buildings insurance because of existing flood risks and 1500 homes would most definitely increase this risk and I can't see how any of the new houses on the Greenbelt fields will get buildings insurance with the knowledge of existing flood risks. How can you responsibly build homes to sell knowing that insurance companies will not provide needed insurance to get a mortgage? There is no evidence that the council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be significant and it does seem ridiculously unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and no other. Why has a small village being allocated almost half of the total number of houses required in the Borough? Why has Ingatestone not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon that also runs into London? Both Brentwood town and Shenfield are getting 1000 homes and Ingatestone receives 130 homes and that's it?! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that as they have a station that they also receive a fair share of the allocation of houses. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land, however recent clarifications have made it clear that housing demand is unlikely to constitute justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I would like to see the Timmermans nursery on the A127 considered as an alternative site. Land which is Greenbelt, but already being used for another purpose. Why is the Hutton Industrial Estate not being put forward as a Brownfield site suitable for development, much like West Horndon Industrial Estate it has some privately owned areas and others that are not. Hutton Industrial Estate much like our own Industrial Estate also runs through compact residential areas and sees large trucks travelling by residents homes, which I'm sure they see as an annoyance. This would seriously impact upon the need to redevelop Greenbelt areas.

I am also deeply concerned about the lack of communication with residents over this period and the simple suggestion that this plan has incorporated residents' views. From when? I am not aware of 1 resident who was in any way fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LDP statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback!

The construction of such a huge number of houses on the edge of our village will destroy its open setting and rural character. The qualities that so many of the residents love about our village will be obliterated. We moved to West Horndon to live in a village, surrounded by open countryside. Your plan apprears to have fundamental shortcomings and goes against so many points noted in national guidance and the planning framework.

As my 8 year old son asked yesterday, 'Why would they want to build so many houses in a nice little village?'.

I writing in connection with the above planning application, I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the above development of the amount of houses proposed in this location.

Apparently our village has been targeted because of the Railway Station which goes straight into the city. However, the station is operating at maximum capacity and they are no seats available from the earliest train going into the city, more commuters more problems .

I feel another reason for objecting to this proposal is our poor drainage system which affects all of us in the village. Please take time to investigate this.
Your statement that Brentwood can be accessed from Thorndon Avenue is totally wrong, in the A127 is a dual carriageway going away from this destination.
Station Road, being the main road out of the village is also operating at full capacity with problems joining the A128 at most times of the day.
The whole infrastructure in this village is at full capacity IE Doctors, Schools Bus Service etc.

In the last few years new homes of all types have been built in West Horndon and some have still not been sold, wouldn't building more properties have the same result.

This amount of housing should be reconsidered.

Having now had time to assess the proposed plan for Brentwood's development, as a West Horndon resident I write to express my thoughts and concerns for the plans for the village I live in, but firstly I would like to express my extreme disappointment to learn of such a large scale project proposal via the front page of the local newspaper, and without any prior notice or consultation with myself and fellow residents of what is in my opinion a truly great village, and one that should be treated with the equal respect that is shown by those people who have made it their home. I appreciate that work has been done in the last few weeks, and I am truly grateful to all those people involved within the local council and our own parish council, but to see front page news a few weeks back for a plan to treble the size of the population in the area that you live in is truly shocking. In a nutshell, on a personal note, trying to give you some perspective of how one receives such news, this projected plan leaves me, and I certainly feel many of my fellow residents, with a feeling of a lack of respect paid to us by this proposal, ft's unpleasant, it feels like an attack on your way of life, this is the reality, and I am concerned that such a likely reaction has not been considered well in this proposal, and if it actually has, I put it to you that there clearly exists a lack of respect for the people of this village. The sheer size of this project naturally delivers a threat to the way of life we enjoy here currently, and it doesn't take a genius to identify there are inherent risks, and that significant changes in infrastructure will be required. I am truly astounded that some of the key discussions that are critical to this project such as the impact on the local school, our roads, the increase on the rail-passengers, flood risk, do not seem to have been researched at all well at this stage, if at all. To hear this lack of research after learning of the project and its scale in your local paper is very disappointing. The people of West Horndon are a great community, and are worthy of better treatment, and a less dramatic and better researched proposal for change in their neighbourhood. Despite the positive intentions of this project, and one can of course understand these intentions and the opportunities that West Horndon may provide for new settlement, we should not ignore what makes this village great and the community it has become today. There exists within the plan a great risk of destroying this community as we know it with the scale of this project and the lack of research currently undertaken. I will now highlight my key concerns:

Scale
43% of the target new housing for Brentwood being allocated to West Horndon is far too excessive a figure despite the opportunities the village is deemed to bring. How on earth can the village be expected to bear this huge majority share of the borough's target new housing?. It is truly mindblowing, and again how do you expect residents to react? - and i f you were expecting such a response, I stress again you are knowingly showing a lack of respect to the people of West Horndon. A % figure this high should surely highlight to you that an unfair proportion is being allocated to West Horndon. People invested in their homes in this area due to the village's way of life. As my local council, I expected you to recognise and help me maintain this way of life. The changes you propose completely alter what was an easy decision to make West Horndon our home. Surely you can understand why such a huge project worries me? Especially one with such poor early research.

Top Down nature of this proposal.
As already mentioned, I am disappointed at the level of engagement with the residents in the early stages of such a huge proposed change to our way of life. I refer to the Localism Act here, which highlights the natural reaction and resentment that such actions bring.

Metropolitan Green Belt
I believe all Green Belt should remain so, show me a genuine person that doesn't. I would like to see the targeted Industrial Estates become housing, this part of the project I agree to be positive for both the existing village and the new settlements, but a more reasonable number of houses should be considered and debated with residents.

Sustainable Location
Due to the evident inadequacies that West Horndon has for such growth, there needs to be far better researched feedback to residents to enable people to make their own informed decisions on whether the area can remain providing services and a lifestyle that residents are currently used to. I have no confidence whatsoever currently that the village can be considered a sustainable location following such a dramatic change. This is critical, and from what I see currently, there is a huge amount of work to do to convince residents that sustainability is achievable.

The "Village" and its setting
Why do people choose to live in West Horndon? Why do people move to West Homdon? The answer is because it provides a countryside village enviromnent in a great borough that provides beautiful views, wildlife in abundance, a certain type of home for a certain type of individual/family, ft's not for everybody, but it has qualities that appeal to certain people. The small population and open space are some of these qualfties, and provide for the "village" status.

People
invest their life's savings here when they make this place their home, and they invest based on a typically quieter environment than the average town. Your proposed plan carries a huge risk to this investment, and i f one was to consider this in pure purchasing terms as some kind of "contract', would it be fair to say that what one has purchased has changed so much as to be something that the purchaser did not intend to purchase at the outset of the contract? Would West Horndon remain a village?

Roads
Traffic increase is a concern. The A127 is appalling at rush hour. The abolishment of the Industrial Estate provides for less HGV's, but the growth in smaller family cars will be huge. The roads are currently inadequate for this projected growth, and there is no sight of a convincing plan or strategy for the accommodation of this increased traffic.

Flood Risk
This risk is one close to my heart and a sensitive subject. Our home, and four of our neighbours were flooded throughout on Christmas Day 2012. The past year has been the most difficult of my
life, restoring our home, and endeavoring to maintain everyday life in the process. We lost our
next-door neighbour, a dear old lady, moved into temporary accommodation, shortly after the event. This change in lifestyle, albeit temporary, clearly had too great an impact, but I hope demonstrates the impact a dramatic change in lifestyle can have for some people. Sorry to paint this sad picture, but its fact, and I do so you can understand the significance of this flood event. A not so merry Christmas, a holy flood maybe? Our home was flooded in every room, the entire house is currently still being restored, room by room. I remind you that I am a resident in Brentwood. I have heard nothing whatsoever from Brentwood Council, which is fine, we've coped and I'm not sure to what extent you would get involved in such an event, so can only assume there seems no interest in this catastrophe, yet at the same time I am faced with the prospect of a repeat event. I put it to you that unless I consider some significant changes to my landscape, I will remain exposed to the peril of flood despite the ditch at the back of my property, which clearly is inadequate to withstand flooding.

That's obvious, its happened once, and the landscape remains unchanged. I ask you do you really
understand the risk imposed by flood in this village, and if so, why did my property flood?

Additionally, can you please explain why the new housing will not be exposed to flood, and
additionally whether similar precautionary work can be carried out on my own property.

Summary
I hope that I have managed to get across the concerns my family have with this project, and hope
that my criticisms will be viewed constructively, and that we accept that some housing would be positive, certainly in place of the current industrial area. I have been as honest as possible with my response, and hope that our reaction to this proposal can be understood to be a natural one, and one based on very real risks and concerns.

My family and I totally respect the need for the provision of housing for a growing population, but West Horndon is completely misunderstood in this proposal, with a short-sighted emphasis really based in my view on a station which happens to have lots of open land around it. There is extremely poor research and non-existent planning currently into the needs of the area to respond to such a significant change, and this added to the ignorance of people's reasons for choice of investment here, making the village their home, leaves me currently very disappointed for the first time since my arrival in Brentwood from London 10 years ago. Brentwood is a truly great borough, and we should all be proud of it. West Horndon is a great village, and we are proud to call it our home, and we truly hope it can remain so for the future.

See attachment

- What infrastructure is in place with regards to roads, services, transport, schools etc. before the build begins
- Within the 1500 homes how many will be 1,2,3 bedrooms.? Depending on this answer how do you intend to accommodate these people?
- How do you plan to stop the village from flooding, by removing the green belt which helps with drainage, what are you going to put in place?
- With 1500 homes will bring minimum of 1500 cars possible leading to over 3000, the A127 London bound of a morning is always nose to tail and in the evening Southend bound what do you plan to do about this?
- The Doctors in the village is under pressure as it is, it will never be able to cope with additional 1500 or 250. Same goes for the playschool, primary school, and how do plan to coach the secondary school children into Brentwood?
- West Horndon is a village and this is why we moved here, once you bring in this amount of properties we will then become a town and we don't won't this
- There is a lot of people that work on the industrial estate that rely on the trains to get to work, how do you plan to get these people from the station to the M25?

1. Large scale development.
West Horndon currently has approximately 750 homes, this proposal will effectively treble the size of the village. It would therefore no longer be a village and its character and ethos will be lost and changed totally. We have chosen to live in West Horndon because of the type of village it is and this large scale development will completely ruin that and possibly reduce the value of the existing properties in the process.

The proposal to build a large estate behind existing properties will block views residents currently have and their outlook will just be over houses. There will consequently be a loss of large expanse of countryside and also we will lose the wide variety of wildlife that are currently seen in and around the village. We feel that no consideration has been given to wildlife issues.

We are being asked to comment on these proposals when there are no details for us to comment on, only boundaries and location of the proposed site and the number of homes it might contain.

2. Distribution of new homes throughout the Borough.
Looking at the distribution of the new homes for the Brentwood area it is obvious that the distribution is extremely unfair. Why are there so many new homes proposed for the south of the borough? There is no justification for such a large proportion of the allocation to be built at West Horndon. There must be other suitable areas e.g homes could be built on the Hutton industrial estate if that was moved as it is proposed to move the West Horndon industrial site. The Hutton site is near many facilities that are far better than the existing facilities in West Horndon e.g.shops, bus links and, Shenfield station with far more frequent trains.

3. Traffic problems.
The proposal is for 1500 new homes. Given that in general there are 1 or 2 vehicles per home this will mean an extra 2,000 vehicles going into and out of West Horndon. This will result in a higher volume of traffic going along Station Road and Thorndon Avenue. This will result in more traffic noise and pollution along both roads. It will also lead to queues of traffic trying to get onto the A127 and the A128 especially during the rush hour. The queues on the A128 may also cause problems on the flyover over the A127 causing further congestion. There is already a problem with speeding along Station Road and Thorndon Avenue and this will undoubtedly increase with all the extra vehicles. The council have not shown any evidence of plans to improve the roads to cope with the extra traffic.

4. Property values.
New properties that have been built in West Horndon in the last few years have taken a long time to be sold why do the council think that this will change? Especially as it is also proposed to have a 14 Traveller sites in or near to West Horndon. The reality is that if prospective buyers are considering a new property in West Horndon then as soon as they hear of the traveller proposal they will buy elsewhere. It is a fact that a Traveller site will reduce the value of properties in that area - as evidenced in Crays Hill where Basildon council has put properties in Crays Hill in a lower council tax band.

5.Medical facilities.
We cannot always get a doctors appointment on the same day now with 750 homes, how long will we have to wait if the planned development goes ahead? The Health Authority have no plans to increase our medical facilities if this development goes ahead.

6. Public transport.
Extra people will mean more commuters on the trains. c2c currently have no plans to increase the frequency of the trains or to increase the number of coaches during rush hour. The trains are already very crowded at rush hour so extra people will make the situation intolerable. Rail travel from West Horndon does not cater for journeys within the borough the stations either side of West Horndon are in different boroughs.

The bus service is very infrequent and does not run in the evenings. The lack of public transport to other parts of the borough mean that residents of West Horndon will have to rely on their own transport - thus creating extra traffic day and night. There are not many people that would be able to cycle all the way to Brentwood - even if a "Green route" is developed.

The Brentwood Local Plan justification for siting so many new homes at West Horndon is that it has "good road and rail access". This only applies for the current size of the village. If it is tripled in size then the road and rail access is inadequate and major investment would be need in both to bring them up to the standard required to provide an adequate service.

7. Loss of Green Belt.
The planned development is mainly on metropolitan green belt. This was originally set up by the government to expressly stop urban sprawl and keep land permanently open. As per the National Planning Policy Framework that states "exceptional circumstances must exist to justify loss of green belt" the government have recently stated that housing demand is unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.

8. Risk of flooding.
The planned development is on a flood plain - how can homes be built on such an area? Some residents have already been turned down by insurance companies because of the flooding only as recent as last Christmas. The village has been flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. There is no evidence that the council have carried out any assessment of drainage in the area. Even the Environment Agency's website shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk if flooding. There are already problems with drainage, sewage how can extra homes be built without major improvements?

9. Local school.
The school is at full capacity. There will be no spaces at the local school for all the extra children.

10. Hospital facilities.
With so many new homes proposed in West Horndon and locally in Thurrock, Basildon hospital will not be able to cope with all the extra demands that will be placed on it. This will mean that people will have to travel further afield for treatment and other hospitals such as Queen's are struggling to cope with existing numbers of people that require treatment.


11. Crime.
Obviously with an increase in population, comes with it an increase in the crime rate, something which at the moment is low as per many VILLAGES. Also with the current economic climate it would be most unlikely that police resources could cope.

12. The Borough Council is expecting people to comment on a sketchy, poorly researched plan. It should therefore carry out a study of West Horndon focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport. Only after this has been done can it be said that the plan is responding to the needs of the local community. The local community has had little input into the plan. This is against the government guidelines of " Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and business is essential".

I'm writing in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Development Plan, in specific section CP4 which identifies West Horndon for an increase of 1500 homes. West Horndon is small Village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself and the Ward has no more than 701 homes altogether. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment and this cannot be ignored.

I have to ask why West Horndon has been singled out for 'significant and future growth'? The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the Local Development Plan objectives as a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station and a platform which has been extended however C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, which means no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use.

We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen the A128 and any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only increase the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. We have an extremely poor bus service, which means residents often don't leave the village or have to wait hours for the next bus to return to the village. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctor's appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything to indicate what will happen to our current health service and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? The doctor's surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increased number of homes suggested for West Horndon. With many elderly members in the village who rely upon these services there are serious concerns that many people's health will be put at risk. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen it. The current access to the A127 from Thorndon Avenue is extremely dangerous and requires a 90 degree angle turn into Thorndon Avenue from the A127. Trying to join the A127 from Thorndon Avenue require dangerous increases of speed and a very small slip road. Many people take the corner too fast and don't anticipate other drivers approaching up from Thorndon Avenue. With 1500 homes being built in the village there will most certainly be an increase in accidents.

Living on the west side of Thorndon Avenue I am very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. These fields area act as a soak for waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which floods when we have heavy rain. Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it very clear that no development should in anyway have a negative impact upon any neighbouring areas. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. We learned when surveys were completed on our house that the Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land west of our property in excess of 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents. Having recently moved to this area in August 2013 we found our previous Buildings Insurance provider could not cover us because of the risk of flooding and have found it very difficult to get buildings insurance. We would be very concerned about the risk of more flooding in this area with the suggested 1000 homes west of Thorndon Avenue. I'm sure many of those new builds will find it difficult to get buildings and contents insurance because of the villages previous flood history. There is no evidence that Brentwood Borough Council have carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be very significant and it does seem extremely unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and apparently no other! We have to ask why Ingateston has not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon. Why is it that Ingateston have only received 130 homes and that's it! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that this lose be shared equally across the borough and not simply from one area; West of Thorndon Avenue. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land and recent clarifications from Government have made it clear that housing demand is an unlikely justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I have not found a single resident who was in anyway fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LPD statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback. What guarantees do we have that this 'master planning' will happen and that developers will not simply do as they wish and build lots and lots of houses to make money? Who will be responsible for conducting this change and who can we as residents call out to ensure that promises are being met?

West Horndon has limited infrastructure. Whilst it may have a small station it has other very limited facilities, very infrequent bus service, limited health care you can wait 3 days for an appointment and a primary school that is full. To plan to triple the size of this village and put 42% of the total housing commitment here will mean that the characteristics of a village will disappear. Why are have the remaining 6 villages been excluded from this,

Join the campaign to stop this 1,500 Housing Development
WEST HORNDON VILLAGE SAYS NO
DO YOUR BIT AND SIGN THIS PETITION
Petitions held at St. Fancis Church or at Ash's shop (closing date 19 Aug)
SPREAD THE WORD
Find your neighbours at "West Horndon Community" Facebook page

We the Citizens of West Horndon, petition against the council to say "NO" to the 1500 housing development being considered for West Horndon.

Join the campaign to stop this 1,500 Housing Development
WEST HORNDON VILLAGE SAYS NO
DO YOUR BIT AND SIGN THIS PETITION
Petitions held at St. Fancis Church or at Ash's shop (closing date 19 Aug)
SPREAD THE WORD
Find your neighbours at "West Horndon Community" Facebook page

We the Citizens of West Horndon, petition against the council to say "NO" to the 1500 housing development being considered for West Horndon.

Join the campaign to stop this 1,500 Housing Development
WEST HORNDON VILLAGE SAYS NO
DO YOUR BIT AND SIGN THIS PETITION
Petitions held at St. Fancis Church or at Ash's shop (closing date 19 Aug)
SPREAD THE WORD
Find your neighbours at "West Horndon Community" Facebook page

We the Citizens of West Horndon, petition against the council to say "NO" to the 1500 housing development being considered for West Horndon.

Join the campaign to stop this 1,500 Housing Development
WEST HORNDON VILLAGE SAYS NO
DO YOUR BIT AND SIGN THIS PETITION
Petitions held at St. Fancis Church or at Ash's shop (closing date 19 Aug)
SPREAD THE WORD
Find your neighbours at "West Horndon Community" Facebook page

We the Citizens of West Horndon, petition against the council to say "NO" to the 1500 housing development being considered for West Horndon.

Join the campaign to stop this 1,500 Housing Development
WEST HORNDON VILLAGE SAYS NO
DO YOUR BIT AND SIGN THIS PETITION
Petitions held at St. Fancis Church or at Ash's shop (closing date 19 Aug)
SPREAD THE WORD
Find your neighbours at "West Horndon Community" Facebook page

We the Citizens of West Horndon, petition against the council to say "NO" to the 1500 housing development being considered for West Horndon.