Whilst I recognise that the borough requires significant housing development, potentially in line in numbers with that identified within the Local Plan 2015-2030, I strongly object to the proposed concentration of new dwellings, over a sustained period of time, within the identified West Horndon Opportunity Area.

The construction of 200-250 new dwellings within West Horndon, every year, for 15 years, will firstly expand the town beyond recognition. Based on the current population size (which is broadly stable), the proposals would see it essentially triple in size. Whilst there are proposals for improved infrastructure, it is questionable whether this is truly sustainable within the land area proposed. The density of construction required will not be in-fitting with this beautiful countryside location, where houses are two stories tall at most, with a significant proportion of bungalows. High rise or even medium rise flats are not at all in-fitting with current town character.

Secondly, as our council, Brentwood Borough Council has the obligation to serve existing residents, not just new ones. Those who have made West Horndon their home will see a material depression in their house values as the 200-250 new dwellings come on to the market. There will be no compensation to the existing residents, which feels highly inequitable for such a small population.

Thirdly. Whilst the attractions of expanding at West Horndon are clear, one must question market demand for 200-250 new dwellings each year, in the same place, over 15 years. This demand is unproven, and highly questionable. Is it right that just under half of individuals looking to live in the entire Brentwood Borough, will want to all live in the same place? In a completely new development? It is worth highlighting on this point that the newer, small sized dwellings completed within West Horndon more recently have struggled to sell, particularly those allocated as "affordable housing" (development in question: 191 Thorndon Avenue). Simply finding one place to build nearly half of the dwellings required by the Borough does not mean people will decide to live in them - they need to be in varied locations reflecting local demand.

Lastly, your plans to allocate the bulk of all required traveller sites to West Horndon again looks highly inequitable. I would also question suitability - West Horndon has been flagged as a key area for expansion due to its location to rail links; in essence, this is land prime for development for commuters and local business workers. Travellers, with limited ties to one location, do not have these requirements and indeed it is not clear why the same land so prime for employment and fixed residential communities, also makes sense for a traveller community.

Hence in summary, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. West Horndon is a small village that whilst can accept a decent level of development, should not be targeted at such a level. It appears that it has been viewed as a fix for the entire borough, and indeed I fear that if these plans are bourn out you will end up with a bloated stock of houses in one location with limited demand vs. supply. The solution needs to provide housing where it is actually needed, and well balanced across the Borough. This proposal fails on both counts.

[see attached comment for further submission]

Will help build up this rather isolated community

By making this village into a town of Urban sprawl there will be more traffic on the failing A127 & 128 into & through two further villages (Herongate & Ingrave),adding massive traffic congestion on an already over used ,congested & extremely dangerous road ... how many accidents this year?
This will also bring further stain on other already strained public resources. I object to this Urban sprawl leave West Horndon a village too many developments proposed!!! Massive Implications for A127 & 128

This preferred option will treble the size of the village and will totally change the characteristics of the village. The number of dwellings proposed is is 43% of the total for Brentwood and the only reason for this seems to be that there is existing infrastructure. There is no evidence that the existing infrastructure can cope with this increase in numbers infact the evidence that we witness on a daily basis demonstrates that this village cannot cope with an increase of this magnitude i.e. it has flooded recently (it is built on a flood plain), the station and car park is already busy it is a small village station which surrounding areas use and therefore is not of a size to support a significant increase in usage. It is also on the C2C line which goes into Fenchurch Street which has only 4 platforms. Therefore it is difficult to see how any changes could be made to the existing set up. There is one road to the A128 and this sees long delays in turning right and left and is also a regular accident hotspot. The A127 turning into Thorndon ave is not the sort of turning that should be used regularly and the A127 to both London and Southend has major traffic jams both morning and evening in both directions. It is again difficult to see how any new roads could be put in. There is one small primary school which is over subscribed and the children for senior schools have to be sent by bus to Brentwood County High. There are delays in getting a doctors appointment. We have a very limited bus service currently, however we personally I would rather have this than have 1500 houses and live in a town.
We also object to the fact that the only proposed green belt loss is in West Horndon. there is a reason that this greenbelt is there and the loss of this greenbelt will increase the flood factor and will therefore increase the risk that we will be joined to London. In addition we currently have the pleasure of seeing all sorts of wildlife in our gardens and therefore are concerned that this will be lost as part of the impact of a development of this size. We have no objection to the potential use of part of the Industrial park for some houses however cannot see why West Horndon has to take 43% of the areas total housing needs when ther are so many other areas with Brentwood that could be used. We also cannot see why some areas are not being allocated any or very small numbers when they would have some infrastructure there already. In addition there are a number of suitable areas that were being considered previously but have now been discounted. We feel that this overall proposed plan is not sustainable and will impact our lives and the lives of my children. I don't believe that there is any thought being given to the the existing villagers lives and that there is too much thought being given to developers as to where they want to build houses.

West Horndon has limited roads and cannot support the proposed development of 1500 houses. The A127 in the morning is one traffic jam up to the Upminster and beyond with the route to Southend also being severely congested, then in the evening the situation is reversed. The village is already used as a cut through to Upminster and when the A127 is blocked it is impossible to get out of the village. It is difficult to see how the roads can be improved without as there is only one route out of the village to A128, and access to the A127 is only towards Upminster. Both the A127 and A128 junction are accident hotspots. There currently are very limited buses and the station car park is nearly always full as this services the surrounding areas. In addition C2C have no intention of stopping trains more frequently and it is difficult to see how longer trains could be accommodated at West Horndon or Fenchurch Street as this only houses 4 platforms. The existing shops are enough to support a village, but the proposed plan to triple the size of the village will mean that the village will cease to exist and the characteristics that it has will be lost. I personally chose to live in a village not a town and this plan is going to ruin the quality of our lives and my children who also have just moved here.

The document states that it will work in partnership with the local community... this was after they had decided what was happening and came to tell the local community what was happening to OUR village. People move here as they choose the village due to lack of what we are now being told we will accept and be happy about! The council should look at the borough as a whole and distribute the 'improvement' fairly so that every one has a little not just West Horndon as an opportunity for the area to be ruined and a village turned into the town of West horndon.

I would like to object to this plan for the following reasons:-
1) The risk of flood to the village and my property in general. In 2012 West Horndon flooded and it was only because of the green belt land, that you are planning to develop, being able to absorb the excess water that stopped the rest of the village suffering and if this land is then covered in concrete then there is a serious risk of the entire village flooding and serious damage being caused.
2) The A127 is at a standstill most mornings heading into London with heavy traffic going back towards Southend. If we were to add the traffic from another 1,500 homes it would be chaos and the road grid locked. Also the A128 is already close to breaking point. Add into the mixture the 1,500 new homes and this would be un-usable and plain dangerous.
3) Wildlife such as various types of birds, butterflies, amphibians
and mammals including the Tawny Owl, Red Admiral, Great Crested Newt and Pipestrelle Bats are often seen in and around the village and the construction of 1,500 houses on the edge of the village, and consequent loss of a large expanse of open countryside, will destroy its open setting and rural character and no thought has been given for these wildlife and bio-diversity issues issues.
4) The planned work would greatly increase the traffic passing through on residential roads of the village which would impact on everyone and again ruin the village.
5) With this development I and the village will suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens and loss of rural character, without any benefit.
6)The destroying of green belt land is defined by National planning guidelines as inappropriate and harmful and unless exceptional circumstances, which the Government have recently clarified housing demand is unlikely to constitute such loss, is unacceptable and bordering on illegal.
6) No thought has been given for the local residents or improvement of the local community, which is direct opposition of the The National Policy framework which says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions.
7) West Horndon is not a sustainable location. It is a small village of 1,900 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, whilst the primary school is at full capacity. There is already a 3 day wait for the doctor and a very infrequent bus service which isn't fit for purpose. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make journeys by car, the village, quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.

I would like to object to this plan for the following reasons:-
1) The risk of flood to the village and my property in general. In 2012 West Horndon flooded and it was only because of the green belt land, that you are planning to develop, being able to absorb the excess water that stopped the rest of the village suffering and if this land is then covered in concrete then there is a serious risk of the entire village flooding and serious damage being caused.
2) The A127 is at a standstill most mornings heading into London with heavy traffic going back towards Southend. If we were to add the traffic from another 1,500 homes it would be chaos and the road grid locked. Also the A128 is already close to breaking point. Add into the mixture the 1,500 new homes and this would be un-usable and plain dangerous.
3) Wildlife such as various types of birds, butterflies, amphibians
and mammals including the Tawny Owl, Red Admiral, Great Crested Newt and Pipestrelle Bats are often seen in and around the village and the construction of 1,500 houses on the edge of the village, and consequent loss of a large expanse of open countryside, will destroy its open setting and rural character and no thought has been given for these wildlife and bio-diversity issues issues.
4) The planned work would greatly increase the traffic passing through on residential roads of the village which would impact on everyone and again ruin the village.
5) With this development I and the village will suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens and loss of rural character, without any benefit.
6)The destroying of green belt land is defined by National planning guidelines as inappropriate and harmful and unless exceptional circumstances, which the Government have recently clarified housing demand is unlikely to constitute such loss, is unacceptable and bordering on illegal.
6) No thought has been given for the local residents or improvement of the local community, which is direct opposition of the The National Policy framework which says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions.
7) West Horndon is not a sustainable location. It is a small village of 1,900 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, whilst the primary school is at full capacity. There is already a 3 day wait for the doctor and a very infrequent bus service which isn't fit for purpose. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make journeys by car, the village, quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.

Policy DM23
Where is the provision for support services?
3500 dwellings will mean about 10,500 extra people.
There is already pressure on school places. Why sell the Training Centre in Essex way when it should revert to being a school?
How will local GPs cope? For example, there are plans for 1500 homes (about 4500 people) in West Horndon. This would require at least two GPs. Where are they to work?

We have been asked to comment on a major development proposal in West Horndon village with very limited information. The plan only shows location and boundaries. Based on this limited information my comments are as follows;
I am in favour of the change of use of the industrial estate from industry to housing as long as it is in keeping with the village, i.e. having a similar layout proportion of houses and garden size etc. The transport links will have to be improved prior to any development taking place. At present the train service is running approaching capacity, there is a very poor bus service, there is no footbridge / access across the A127 and access onto the A127 is limited. Road links to the village require upgrading prior to any construction works commencing.
There will need to be an expanse in health services, education and shops which requires to be fully detailed.
West Horndon is at risk of flooding as has been seen most recently in Dec 2012, why build on an area that is at risk of flooding?
There is mention of a traveller site but no indication as to location. Further details are required on this subject.
I am greatly against development on METROPOLITAN GREENBELT LAND as greenbelt is greenbelt full stop. No further explanation required.
Overall it absolutely astounds me that Brentwood borough council have proposed West Horndon to take such a large proportion (43%) of Brentwood's future development increasing the village by threefold and therefore losing its village status.
Increase the village by 500 new houses within the industrial area? YES, increase the village by 1500 new houses? NO!!
West Horndon taking 14% of new development in Brentwood would be a much fairer and less harming percentage for all involved. Brentwood covers a large area of land and any development should be shared out across the borough equally. Earmarking West Horndon for almost half of future development to 2030 is completely unacceptable.

This is greenbelt land & therefore any change to this will open the floodgates to any further usage of this that the council so wishes waking this village into a town.
Greenbelt is & should be protected

I object on the basis of this being Greenbelt land ,both areas are greenbelt land & should stay as so & be protected .

The traffic along the a128 is dangerous & heavy to overflowing ,accidents on a weekly basis.

the traffic is dangerous on the A127 & there are weekly accidents on a128 ,heavy traffic is already a problem which is why these areas are surrouned by6 Greenbelt I object to greenbelt being used to make a town & killing our villages - West horndon is a village & should stay a village there is no need in this area for affordable housing, when surrounding area towns have plenty - keep this greenbelt

this is greenbelt land as should stay greenbelt as intended -not intended to turn villages in to urban sprawl creating heaving traffic on already over used A128 - greenbelt is protected land not for purpose of suiting council to move goalpoasts when they wish -this will be opening the gates for all greenbelt to disappear & all villages to turn in to Town thus all joining up -save our greenbelt we do not need this proposed housing & businesses in this village roads & rail can not accommodate!

The plan proposes to increase the size of West Horndon village to accommodate for almost half of all development within the borough of Brentwood to 2030. This is completely unacceptable. Development in Brentwood should be equally distributed across the borough. It is ludicrous that 43% of new development has been assigned for the small village of West Horndon. Even more astounding is the fact that some of this development is proposed on 'Metropolitan Greenbelt land'.
Under no circumstances should any development take place on METROPOLITAN GREEN BELT. Green belt is in place to prevent urban sprawl and should stay that way.
The plan only shows location and boundaries of development. We have been consulted to comment on a major development in the village with very limited information. There are no details of housing layout, infrastructure, transport links, shops, education, health services, flood alleviation schemes, effects on natural habitats etc. The land use is not clear. There is mention of 'mixed use' land with narrow explanation as to what this means. There is mention of a traveller site with no indication of location.
The plan reasons that West Horndon development will create local jobs for Brentwood residents, how do these Brentwood residents get to work? The only access to the village from Brentwood at present is via an infrequent bus service or by car. There is no footbridge / cycle path over the A127. The train service is approaching capacity with no direct access to Brentwood town centre. Increased traffic will affect an already jam-packed rush hour A127 and A128. Access and Egress to the A127 at Thorndon Avenue is currently inadequate and dangerous.
Generally there is not enough information on the plan; there is no evidence that in depth research has been carried out on numerous factors that should be taken into account when considering a development of this size in West Horndon.
A more considerate, less destructive and accepting option would be to develop the industrial estate to new housing compliant with the existing village layout, allocating say 10-15% of Brentwood borough development to 2030 to West Horndon.

Huge chunks of greenbelt land to be used to turn a once thriving village community into town like sprawl of un needed development, greenbelt should not be built on ! once this is allowed there be no greenbelt if the council can seemingly do as they please . Villages are designed that way , TOWNS ARE ANOTHER THING ALTOGETHER - DO NOT USE OUR GREENBELT THIS NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED ,WHEN WILL THE COUNCIL LISTEN!

I strongly object to building on green belt especially metropolitan green belt. Understand there needs to be some houses built no NOT 1500.

Once you start building on these areas it will be one long continuous town, who will stop Thurrock building the other side.

Concerned about the primary school, it will not cope and will need to be shut down - where will those children go to school? How will those parents get them to those schools?

The secondary school is also a worry, the school bus going to County High will not cope and children will need to compete for the spaces that are limited in this school.

Flooding - as I have been flooded ourselves badly at 20 freshwell gardens I object to the increase in surface water. Some of the roads flooded last christmas and we have had problems with sewage.

The trains are already running to full capacity with no plans to upgrade, this will not only put train prices up but there will also be no room. Already you are lucky to have a seat when the train arrives at West Horndon travelling to London.

The local businesses that will need to be moved from the Industrial Site will suffer trading and need to be compensated.

Local traffic is already a problem. During rush hour the roads are congested, we do not need extra traffic moving in and out of the village.

I object to the traveler sites. I do not understand why we have to be a dumping ground for them when they bring nothing to society. We pride ourselves in West Horndon with a low crime rate, and this will definitely increase and bring the value of our houses down.

The doctors surgery will not be able to cope, it is already difficult getting an appointment.

I accept we need more homes but object to them being in one area. Brown field sites should be used first.

Green belt should be preserved for future generations, once we start building on the green belt land it will not stop.
West Horndon has not got enough infrastructure to cope with the proposed amount of houses. The trains along the C2C service are already running at full capacity and have no plans to upgrade.

The sewage will be a major problem. The additional surface water will create added problems.

I strongly object to the travelers site, they put nothing into the system and will just degrade the area.

I strongly object to the development plans.
Metropolitan green belt land needs to be protected if you start allowing building, it will open the flood gates for other councils to build on the sites. You need to protect the area around London.

Building should take place around Shenfield areas where they have more infrastructure. The village already suffers from major congestion, the rush hour is chaos.

The primary school will not be able to cope. The traveler sites need to be so many miles away from schools, infrastructure but do they even use them. NO. How will the school be able to handle the increase in numbers when it is already full.
The school will need to be closed and rebuilt - where will those children go to school? How will their parents get them to those schools?

It is already hard for children to get into brentwood schools. This will increase numbers of children trying to get into brentwood county high school and the school bus. There will be no room for extra children on the bus.

The travelers will bring rubbish, crime and do not clean up after themselves. They should have to pay to live on these sites and that money can be used to clean up after them and feed back into West Horndon. The travelers will be from Basildon area that were evicted recently. Look at the problems they bought with them. Why should we have to accommodate them here in West Horndon.

This will have an effect on the house prices. They will decrease, this is unfair on people that have worked hard to be able to buy a house here. West Horndon is a safe place, you increase the population, the crime will increase.

Flooding is already an issue in West Horndon, more houses means more flooding.

We have a limited number of buses that come to the village, this will not improve.

The trains are full already, there are no plans for C2c to upgrade the service. Train prices will increase, no seats, no room to board train. This will have an effect on all other train stops.

We need better roads if this is to go ahead. This should not be paid for by the tax payer. These changes need to be made before development begins.

The metropolitan green belt land is there to protect thurrock, west horndon and London merging together. We need to protect the countryside.

This land is at risk of flooding we must have work done to ensure the flooding like last christmas does not happen again.

I strongly disagree with the amount of houses being suggested. WH is vulnerable to flooding which was proved last christmas. The increase in homes will mean an increase in surface water. The area needs to be upgraded before development begins.

The primary school will not be able to cope with extra attendees. The school will need to be rebuilt, where will these children go during this time?

The bus taking children to county high will be over capacity. This will mean parents fighting for the limited spaces. The bus service struggles to run at present, so there are no hopes of children getting on that bus.

The trains are a nightmare during the mornings at present. with no plans to upgrade this will cause major congestion for all people travelling along the C2C service.

Traveler sites will bring mess, decrease our house prices and they add nothing to society. They need to pay for their right to be there. WH should not have to pay for the mess they leave.

More people brings more crime you are changing the village to a less attractive place to live.

The metropolitan green belt needs to be protected. It is protected to stop London merging with WH and Thurrock. If you start building here, where will the building end. Thurrock will end up building the other side, how can you stop that?

The loss of business that businesses will experience will be huge. These will need to be compensated.

The sewage has always stopped development here in the future, we will need more sewage developments before this goes ahead.

The plan to build 1500 properties in West Horndon is ludicrous. There are numerous reasons why - traffic congestion, schooling, sewage and drainage, to name a few. Whilst the plan to move the industrial site is extremely attractive there would be an I Mende detrimental impact on the village with the amount of extra persons and vehicles the housing development would generate. 1500 houses could amount to at least 3000 vehicles. There are only 2 routes into and out of the village. Traffic congestion is inevitable should the development go ahead. Whilst I totally appreciate the need to create more affordable homes in our area, the size of the project is not feasible. Maybe a vast reduction of the scale of the development needs to be considered. I do not have an objection to the industrial site being relocated as the lorries have caused a considerable nuisance in the 13 years I have lived in the village. I also do not have an objection to a reduced scale development of a few houses being built but the government needs to seriously consider if our village with its tiny school, restricted vehicular access and tendency to flood could really cope with any additional population at all. With regard to a travellers site I strongly object and will continue to fight it.

I am writing to register my strong protest regarding the proposed plan to develop 1500 new homes and a travellers site in West Horndon. To date the residents of West Horndon have been given very little detail regarding this proposal which is sketchy and ill thought out in the extreme, and it is understandably of huge concern.

The village would not be able to sustain a development of this size and it would totally destroy the existing village.

Increased traffic and congestion
The access in and out of the village is very limited. The 128 towards Tilbury cannot be improved due to the railway bridge, the 128 towards Brentwood runs through Ingrave and Herongate, and heading towards Upminister you have the small railway bridge. Anyone who lives in the area is aware that the 127 towards London is a nightmare, often at standstill and during school term time the same can be said of the 128 going into Brentwood. Traffic coming from Tilbury is also very heavy. At the moment the village does have a significant problem with large lorries thundering down Station Road and Thorndon Avenue has only the one way exit off the A127.

Infrastructure
1500 new homes would mean many more families. The primary school is at full capacity and once the children move on to secondary school they have to be transferred by bus into Brentwood. We have a small doctors surgery and often have to wait now for appointments. The bus service is very poor and anyone moving into the area, unless they can go by rail will need a car to get to work. We have very few shops and amenities, in particular for young people. Again we are dependant on the car for shopping and leisure.

Green Belt
It has always been my understanding that the Green Belt needs to be protected and that both local and National government were there to ensure protection. This is to protect an increasing sprawl of development and to go ahead with this proposal will be to destroy part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Green Belt is our legacy to future generations and should not be utilized. Once encroached upon it then becomes an easy option to build more and more. Too often these decisions are taken to people who are not directly affected by the outcome to the detriment of the residents.

Flooding
I understand that there has in the past been flooding in West Horndon and the Environment Agency's own website shows a risk of flooding to West Horndon. This must be taken into account. This is unfair to the existing residents and also to anyone looking to buy one of the new homes.

Redevelopment of the Industrial site
This would impact on people already working on the existing site as there is no guarantee that the existing companies could or would want to be relocated.

Conclusion
This development constitutes 43% of the proposed new development in Brentwood. Why this huge percentage should be inflicted on one small village is a mystery. There has been very little consultation and no information as to how this would impact on utilities such as water, waste etc, and services. This plan would treble the size of the existing village turning it into a huge sprawling estate. The sheer number of houses proposed is totally out of proportion to the size of the village. The rural character of the village would drastically change and the reason why many of us moved here and worked to pay our mortgages would be gone. This plan does not take into account the existing residents and we have had no involvement in the plans so far. This would also affect the wildlife around the village. I do not see that the existing residents would receive any benefits from this proposal and there must surely be other areas within the borough where the amenities are better. The Wash Road industrial estate is one area that springs to mind. New homes should be spaced around the Borough in areas where there is existing infrastructure to accommodate them.

There are serious misgivings regarding this proposal and we would ask the planning department to look again as this is neither sound or fair. The council should also look at sites that do have existing planning permission but have not be utilised. I heard a news report that Nationwide this exceeds the number of new home that currently are being proposed Nationwide.

I am totally opposed to any building on Green Belt land. I understand that some building will take place in West Horndon and using the Industrial Estate for housing seems appropriate but the access routes will need to be very carefully planned. The current access opposite the station would be neither sensible or safe. 500 houses in this area is the maximum that should be built in West Horndon in order to retain it as a village. We do not wish to become a town. It is also totally inappropriate to put traveller sites in a village.

I, like virtually every other resident in the village, object very strongly to the proposed plans for development in the fields to the West of the village.
People have purchased their homes in West Horndon because they like village life. If they wanted town life they would have gone elsewhere and town is exactly what is being proposed.
I was always under the impression that the land, that will be used, was green belt land and as such could not be used for building on and nature will be sorely affected. Our lanes are certainly not suitable for such large usage and to turn onto the A127 from one of the sides roads is dangerous. Will there be slip roads made available? The increase of vehicles is obviously going to be tremendous.
Our Doctors will not be able to cope. It is often impossible to get an appointment now when wanted. Our school is certainly not large enough so I can only assume another one will be built. When you consider that people drive their children to school now there will have to be even more transport to one further away.
We do not have that many trains stop here in comparison with other stations which will cause more problems and the buses we have now go only to Brentwood, the ones to Basildon and Upminster being cancelled years ago.
I have seen the other possible sites on the plans which are only minute in comparison to the one proposed to the one proposed here why is West Horndon, yet again, being made to suffer.
Yes it would be nice to get rid of the large vehicles which come through the village but that is the only benefit I can see and people will lose their local jobs on the demolition of the industrial estate. But what about the large vehicles, some of which are bound to come through the village during building works and to get to the new site after completion especially if new shops are built.
I have lived here since 1956 and the new flats that have recently been built do not fit a country village what you are intending is even much worse.

Proposed development at West Horndon
I disagree with the proposal of so many houses being built:-
a) The Green Belt should remain Green Belt
b) The village would no longer be a village because the amount of new dwellings proposed would swamp it.
c) The flood risk is ever present with floods occurring in 1958, 1981 and 2012. Having suffered flood damage to my own property here I would like to know if there has been sufficient assessment carried out of drainage in the area if the village is to be tripled in size.
We are a small village with few amenities and an extremely poor bus service. I do no think our location is sustainable for your plans.
I do not object to a small development of new homes but not on Green Belt and only if the flood risk has been properly assessed and implemented.

I recently attended the Parish Council Meeting for Herongate, attended by two council planning representatives. I feel I must register my concern regarding the planned development for West Horndon. Whilst I appreciate the need for housing and do not wish to sound "NIMBY", the proposed increase in housing for West Horndon will have a major impact on the surrounding infrastructure. The A128 between the A127 and Brentwood is a busy road at the best of times. During school runs and if there are problems on the M25, this road grinds to a halt. An increase in the population of West Horndon will exacerbate this problem. There is no other direct route into Brentwood for the West Horndon residents and with an increase in population comes an increase of persons wanting to access Brentwood facilities, schools, shops, dentists, doctors. There is also a knock on effect on the local hospitals where waiting lists are already stretched. There is no way that this road can be widened or moved without significant impact on the green belt. I understand that there are no plans to upgrade or expand West Horndon station and doubt that it could cope with an increase in commuters wishing to use the trains and car park. Can you please advise what plans are in place to facilitate a robust infrastructure to support these proposed houses? I have also grave concerns at the constant eating away of the green belt area. This was designed to be the "lungs" of London but is gradually becoming covered in concrete. The M25 works being an example. Was this not supposed to return to green belt? Not become a brown field site for development? I firmly believe that greenbelt should be sacred and development on any inch of it be considered very gravely as any erosion opens the door for further development.

I write to register my husband and my opposition to the proposal. The Village of West Horndon has been our home for the past 26 years, we moved from London in order to find a better life for ourselves and our children and we found that here. So very few places like this exist now, mainly built up areas which are over developed without taking into consideration the surrounding area and resident's views. West Horndon is a tranquil place and the facilities we have just about cover resident's needs. We are surrounded by fields and a few roads which take heavy traffic from the industrial estate. Also this is a flood plane area and a productive farming one too.

Whilst we understand the need for development I wonder whether you understand the needs of the people who live in the village or indeed the history of which goes back hundreds of years.

One of the many reasons given regarding the benefit of such a development was the trains. We were told that the service would greatly improve. This is not the case. Having enquired about this there are no plans and they do not envisage any for West Horndon's link in the future.

I know of no other person who wants' this development to go ahead, indeed we would rather keep the industrial estate. Why can't they build houses where they intend moving the industrial estate. Surely this would be more sensible.

Words fail me, I am at a loss. I thought I would see the rest of my days out with my husband in a place we have come to love and I am heartbroken to think our village will be destroyed because this is what the outcome will be. Are we to become just another housing estate to satisfy the governments housing figures/council?

I am writing to air my disaproval of your proposal to build 1500 houses in West Horndon, Essex.

This would negatively affect our area in these ways:

Affect wildlife in our surrounding countryside

Put pressure on our local Scools, amenitities and services

Environmentally - more flooding in Bulphan by the bridge along the fen

Ruin this small quaint Village

Although not actually living in West Horndon, having lived in the area (Little Warley, Upminster side) for over 50 years, I know the area well.

My children attended West Horndon Primary School, I ran guiding there and my husband represented the village in council for many years.
It is a very pleasant village and would accommodate housing in what is now the local business park.

However to develop the village as proposed would have too much of an impact on it, and also lead to more congestion on the A128 and A127.

Brownfield sites should be developed before green belt site are considered.

1. An allocation of 1,500 new homes would make West Horndon several times larger than it is today. It is hard to see how the character and identity could be maintained and this is not detailed by the plan. The allocation is disproportionate when compared to the size of other existing developments within the borough.

2. I would have thought that such a step change in population would require infrastructure improvements. Although the draft LDP does at least acknowledge this, it is not more than an acknowledgement and has not been considered as a constraint to the village development. An Infrastructure Development Plan is referred to as outstanding or to follow.

3. Two thirds of the new homes are proposed on green built but there is no extraordinary justification for this.I commend a plan that would stop such intrusion but would expect the plan to value this over greenbelt development and accordingly prioritise the change of use over any green belt development whilst making provision for employment areas elsewhere. I live on Station Road and already suffer from vibration and noise of heavy lorries travelling to the industrial estate day and night.
4. I have known flooding to occur in the village and understand the Environment Agency show some of the village to be at risk. I would be concerned that greenfield development could worsen this risk but the draft plan does not consider this with substantiated evidence.