I object to the proposal of 1500 houses. West Horndon is a small village and many people live here because of that. The infrastructure we have here can no way cope with this many houses and we have spoken to c2c and there are no plans to increase the already packed trains. The roads or should I say road in and out of the village cannot cope with a possibility of up to 3000 cars running through the village let alone the building work traffic that will also pass through this in my eyes will not make West Horndon a better place. There is also the flood issue as we are on a flood plain here as Christmas day 2012 will show you and we pride ourselves on the green belt around us which you are wanting to take from us. What we cannot see is the benefits to the residents of West Horndon will be and what will happen to our small amount of shops will they just end up boarded up as you are planning to build a shopping centre. This we do not want to see. This will also have a huge impact on the countryside and rural setting of the village no consideration has been given to the wildlife and bio diversity issues. We are led to believe that the existing industrial site will be moved to Childerditch lane has any thought gone to the hundreds of people that are employed here that many of these come to work on a train or unless you are moving the train station these people will be unable to get to work maybe causing loss of employment. National guidance states that LPA should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure. water supply ,wastewater and its treatment ,energy , telecommunications , health social care, education and flood risk to meet forecast demands. This has NOT been done. We pride ourselves on our small rural village and this we want it to stay we do not want West Horndon to turn into a town which in turn could mean more crime and as there is no mention of upping the police presence this could only mean disaster. Could this also mean our house prices will drop as we wont be an exclusive small village but a town as our size could triple will the council compensate us for this and cut our council tax!!! Please don't make us a big concrete place to live surrounded by grid locked roads and keep us rural, PLEASE DON'T RUIN WEST HORNDON?

Letter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Greenbelt must be protected
Villages do not have the infrastructure to support development, nor want it.
Care should be taken to make every possible use of sites for development other than the Greenbelt.
The whole 'feel' of the Brentwood area is one which separates urban sprawl from the greenspaces and this must be protected. The whole point of people living in villages is that they tend to choose to do so simply to be surrounded by some green space and open countryside. The young must be catered but also those us who are of retirement age and don't want to live in flats, or urban surroundings, who want to remain in greenspaces.

See Attached

I strongly feel the proposed plan to be ill thought out and to the detriment of Brentwood (West Horndon) for the following reasons.
1. Development of Metropolitan Green Belt (Area 037) This area is a historical flood plain. (flooded as recent as Xmas 2012)
2. The end of West Horndon as a village (double existing population). The total lack of spare capacity in existing infrastructure i.e.
Health: Doctors appt on 3 day wait.
Public transport: trains standing from only during rush hours.
Schools: no secondary school (more buses required) primary school at near capacity.
Drains: Sewers backed up during wet weather no major upgrade since 1950's.
Roads: A127 & A128 very busy trunk roads, gridlock likely with more capacity.
West Horndon is a rural village in isolation from Brentwood & surrounding villages totally unrealistic proposal to double its population.
3. Area (101A) Green Belt with temporary use at present 'no public transport links (only road)
Overcrowded roads as it.
4. Disproportionate share of Brentwood Plan allotted to West Horndon area. No real proposal for cross rail legacy.
No Green Belt land should be considered until realistic plans are drawn for existing brownfield sites. No industrial site can work without good public services links (non road reliant)
These proposed plans (no substance to them) do nothing to instill confidence that the planning at Brentwood Council will do a good, well though out job on the governments/Brentwood Plan 2015-2030.

We object to the proposal of 1500 houses being built in the village of West Horndon (ref 020, 021, 037) because we moved here from London, because W Horndon was a small village, which it will cease to be of this amount of housing is allowed to ahead. It would cause a strain on the roads in and out of the village, and A127 which comes to a standstill at peak times. The trains area already at full capacity at peak times, no seats available, would need more frequent train with extra coaches. There are few shops, the doctors would not be able to cope with the demand of all the extra people. The school is at full capacity, so there would be a need for a new one. Would there be a flood risk due to building on green belt land (ref 037) where is the water supposed to go? This area is already deemed a flood risk area. I know there is a need for more housing but I don't see why 43% of the total of Brentwood Allocation has to be in the small village of West Horndon. If there has to be a compromise I would be in agreement to 500-600 houses maximum on the Industrial site. After viewing the plans it seemed reasonable but there was no space for a doctors surgery or school. The issues with the roads and trains would still remain.

See attached

See attached

First of all, in my opinion, it is totally wrong to be developing anywhere in South Essex, as the area is already over populated, our roads are often at gridlock with the existing amount of traffic that uses them. There is so much space in other parts of the UK, that is where the Government should be pushing for development.
That said, we need to deal with the matter in hand and, based on the limited information that has been made available, I submit my objection to the proposed development at West Horndon (CP4)
Your justification for this development states that West Horndon has good road and rail access this is just not true. Both the A127 and A128 are not currently adequate to cope with the existing levels of traffic. The proposed development would bring grid-lock to the area with a knock on effect to traffic travelling past the village to and from places such as Basildon and Southend. In addition, The three access/exit junctions ie St Mary's Lane, Station Rd A128 and Thorndon Avenue A127 are barely fit for their current usuage. Any increase in traffic would deem them to be unsafe. Also, Roads within the village were built for light residential use, they are starting to break-up and are just not capable of taking any increase in traffic that this development would create. As for rail access, yes there is a station but trains that stop at West Horndon are infrequent and getting a seat at peak times is rare. In addition, if you wish to travel in the direction of London, the only access to the platform is via a pedestrian footbridge.
Your second justification states that West Horndon has local shops and community facilities. Yes, it does have sufficient shops for its current population but not for three times the population. As for community facilities, these are good but are, in the main, provided by the residents themselves, these would disappear along with the village community.
Next it states that the development offers potential for sustainable development to the benefit of the local community. If the village stays the size that it is. Its longer term needs will be minimal.
As for the development providing an opportunity to address current conflicts from competing uses, most notably, heavy freight passing through residential areas; this I support, Brentwood Enterprise Park (CP7), with its planning location, next to the M25 would take heavy traffic not only from Station Road West Horndon but from other residential and minor roads in the area. This can only be a good move.
The Plan states, "to ensure that development takes into account long term community aspirations for the village, the Council will seek a community masterplanning exercise to determine the precise scale, nature and siting of development and associated works". This is a ridiculous statement, if this development were to go ahead, there will be no village and any amount of master planning exercises will not re-create the community that West Horndon offers.
Another point I must mention is Flood Risk Whilst the village has been flooded on three occasions it has, many other times, been saved from disaster due to drainage on fields surrounding the village. If the proposed development were to go ahead both the new development and the village would be a greater risk of flooding.
The larger part of the proposed development is within Green Belt land, which is so precious in South Essex, please don't destroy it. It is a known fact that spending time in fresh air, open space and enjoying wild life is good for your health. This must be good for the Nation.
One question I would like to ask. Why is a small village like West Horndon being expected to take on 43% of a large Borough's Development Plan?
To summarize, the proposed development would decimate the village of West Horndon. It is a known fact that village communities are generally less dependant on outside agencies and resources such a police, health services and local authorities. It is a know fact that residents take care of one another, provide their own leisure and social facilities etc. etc. Surely village communities are good for the Nation as a whole. If development is to be made in the area it should be attached to existing towns where there will be little effect on such communities.
In conclusion, our own M.P. carries the title "Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government". IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES AHEAD IT WILL NOT ONLY DESTROY AN EXISTING COMMUNITY, IT WILL ALSO DENY FUTURE GENERATIONS THE OPPORTUNITY OF LIVING IN SUCH A PLACE AS WEST HORNDON.

I back onto the Green Belt land, this ground is not suitable for housing, due to the flooding. I was flooded in 1958 and a near thing in 1981 and Christmas 2012, it would take up the surface which is needed to drain the land, also the culverts under the railway would not cope.
This is a small village and the development would swamp it, also the 127 and surrounding roads would take the traffic.

In response to Brentwood Councils "Proposed Development" and West Horndon. I object most strongly to this proposal, which is poorly researched and ill conceived.

We are a small village and your plans are to develop a new settlement alongside us. The character of this VILLAGE will be lost. This VILLAGE has been chosen to take almost half of the allocation of Brentwood, with no explanation as to why.
National guidelines state "Local Planning Authorities" should access the quality and capacity of infrastructure i.e. utilities, telecommunications, water supply, energy, social care, education and health. This does not appear to have been done.

National planning policy framework states that planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of community, also that a wide section of the community should be proactively engaged. This has not been done, we have not been properly consulted on what the VILLAGE wants. Also every time I ask planning a question the answer us "WE DON'T KNOW". All Brentwood Council are doing is imposing their decisions on us without any proper and meaningful consultation.
It appears that most of Brentwood's needs are being imposed on us with no regards for the residents on the environment. Maybe you should consult surrounding Boroughs to take up some of Brentwood's proposed housing.
The main part of the allocation of the proposed housing is on "Green Belt Land" and National Planning says Green Belt development by definition is inappropriate and harmful. Also the Government has said housing demand is unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances to justify housing demand. Can West Horndon be sustainable? Sustainable as defined as ensuring better lives for ourselves, does not mean worse lives for the future with over development.
WE are a small village with very limited amenities i.e hardly any shops, a satellite doctors surgery, where it is difficult to obtain an appointment, we have tried to change doctors only to be told that we have to travel to Baslidon (BY CAR) as we are the wrong side of the A127. The bus service here is limited and often unreliable. The railway station only caters for very limited journeys on already packed trains even at weekends. Jobs in West Horndon will be accessed easier by car with cars speeding through the village from elsewhere.

The new development would create more traffic for the established residents who would appear to gain nothing but the loss of our rural character. We also have to dice with death if we attempt to walk to the local county park, again for safety reasons we have to use our cars.

The A127 Grinds to a halt most mornings another 1,500+ new homes would make this road unbearable, to say nothing of the additional pollution. I have waited for 15 minutes to turn right from Station road onto the A128. This is clearly unacceptable. The M25 as everyone knows cannot cope now.
The village has flooded in the past and again on 25th December 2012, adding misery for the residents, taking away fields will aggravate this issue.

Finally construction of what is frankly a new town on open countryside will destroy this open setting and rural character. We have a wide variety of wildlife and birds including Sparrows which have already for most part disappeared from London because of over building and losing their habitat. Butterflies, Water volves, Great Created Newts etc, will also loose their habitats.

This village will gain nothing, all Brentwood Council is doing is imposing their bad proposals on u without any proper and meaningful consultation as to what the village wants. This will be resented by the resident's on this small community.
PS - Also you are planning a travelers site again when I have asked questions the answer is "Don't Know". Policing in West Horndon is virtually non existent. Bearing in mind the problems Brentwood Council have with some sites which have lead to SHOOTINGS at one. Is this wise? In fact on a recent occasion when a neighbour had an attempted burglary when she was at home. The police officers who eventually turned up told me that they had come from Harlow, and did not know this VILLAGE was here. I have asked if this would be a family site which do not appear to have as many problems as mixed sites again "You don't know" West Horndon is being targeted to bear the brunt of all your plans. Also numbers are being vague on number of pitches.

I ask a question who would want to buy a house there? I know I would NOT

Finally West Horndon is a very small area of Brentwood this site would be on our doorstep.

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

I refer to your proposal to build in West Horndon 43% of the total number of new dwellings needed and must strongly oppose this proposal. You say we are ideally located to accommodate these as we have everything essential for such a development. Has anybody actually been to West Horndon and looked around?

Yes, we have a railway station but so do other villages in and around Brentwood. Ours runs between Southend and Fenchurch Street only - one track going to London and one coming out. There is no way additional tracks could would be laid to to accommodate the extra trains which would be required to carry out the additional passengers using this service. The trains are already full by the time they reach West Horndon with passengers from our village having to push to get on and then having to stand.

Yes, we have roads. But then just about every village in and around Brentwood has roads, most if not all, lead into the M25. We are boarded by the A127 and A128 which are a nightmare to get into most of the day, but more especially during the morning and evening rush hours when they are both virtually at a standstill.

I feel most of the residents have little or no problem with housing being built on sites 020 and 021 in fact it would be a welcome relief to get rid of the 40 ton plus containers lorries that roar through our village morning, noon and night, shaking the homes as they pass most especially in Station Road.

However, it is the 1,000 plus homes on site 037 which is of concern. For one thing this land is Metropolitan Green Belt. An area set aside to give a breathing space around London and was stipulated to be sacrosanct. Even quite recently our Government reiterated that Green Belt land, especially Metropolitan Green Belt, Should not and would not be built upon.

Is West Horndon a sustainable location? Would this development make our lives better? I very much doubt it. We are a small Village of some 650+ homes and approximately 1,800 residents. You are planning to more than triple our village which would mean we could no longer call ourselves Villagers and lose the life we all moved here to enjoy.

As we are surrounded by county lanes these would require widening or indeed new roads built. We would require a new primary school as our already has a waiting list for pupils. Plus perhaps a secondary school too. A new doctors surgery - presently we can wait up to 3 days to get an appointment. WE have no shops to speak of just 2 hairdressers, McColls a very basis and small supermarket, a newsagent, amd a café. Whilst these would be adequate for say a further 500-600 homes, an additional shopping area would be required for a larger number of homes. Our only leisure activities are those organized by various village clubs and held in our village hall.

We then come to a rather large problem in the area - flooding. The Green Belt surrounding us acts as a soak-away to protect in some small way homes south of the A127. West Horndon has to my knowledge been subject to flooding three time - 1958, 1981 and 2012 when several households awoke on Christmas morning to find themselves knee deep in water. Even the A127 flooded and had to be closed. Our Church too looked as if it was sitting in the middle of a lake. Without out Green Belt we would probably have been subject to more flooding over the years. Has the Council considered exactly how much money they would have to spend rectifying this problem?

As I said most residents could be persuaded to see sites 020 and 021 developed with a mix of new homes/dwellings. But 037 is a no-no - have you considered other areas? Elliotts for one. Perhaps even extend one row of housing along Station Road leading to the A128. Also I understand that the owners of Timmermans Garden Center on the A127 are hoping to sell their land but as far no bidders have come forward. There must be other industrial areas you could consider - which like our industrial estate could be better sited on areas with easier and more direct access to major roads.

I hope you will give more thought to your plans and distribute these proposed homes more fairly and evenly throughout the Brentwood area.

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

Re: Local Plan 2015-2030
I feel this plan is VERY WRONG for the following reasons:
1. Development of existing Green Belt site (Area 037) This is a flood plain (flooded Xmas 2012).
2. Change of West Horndon Village to a Town, double its existing size. Plans have no substance to how this will be done to accommodate:
A. Health. Doctors overcrowded
B. Public Transport.Trains just cope in rush hour.
C. Schools. No secondary school, also primary school is full to capacity as it stands now.
3. Industrial Estate at West Horndon provides local employment. New industrial estate (M25 area) This road is reliant only.
4. North Brentwood has no major proposed plans, unlike West Horndon.
In short very poor plan, not thought out.

We are totally opposed to the Local Development Plan relating to West Horndon. The infrastructure would not cope with 1500 homes. The A127 & the A128 could not cope with the extra traffic that would be created. The Trains are already packed from 6.30 to 9am, standing room only. You would not let animals travel like this. No to building Metropolitan green belt land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, in my opinion, it is totally wrong to be developing anywhere in South Essex, as the area is already over populated, our roads are often at gridlock with the existing amount of traffic that uses them. There is so much open space in other parts of the UK, that is where the Government shoUld be pushing for development.

That said, we need to deal with the matter in hand and based on the limited information that has been made available, I submit my OBJECTION to the proposed development at West Horndon (CP4)

Your first justification for this development states that West Horndon has good roads and rail access, this is just not true. Both the A127 and the A128 are not currently adequate to cope with the existing levels of traffic. The proposed development would bring gridlock to the area with a knock on effect to traffic travelling past the village to and from places such as Basildon and Southend. In addition, the three access/exit junction i.e. St Mary's Lane, Station Road A128 and Thorndon Avenue A127 are barely fit for the current usage. Any increase in traffic would deem them to be unsafe. Also, roads within the village were built for light residential use, they are starting to break-up and are just not capable of taking any increase in traffic that this development would create. As for rail access, yes there is a station but trains that stop at West Horndon are infrequent and getting a seat at peak times is rare. In addition, If you wish to travel in the direction of London, the only access to the platform is via a pedestrian footbridge.

Your second justification states that West Horndon has local shops and community facilities. Yes, it does have sufficient shops for its current population but not for three times the population. As for community facilities, these are good but are in the main provided by the residents themselves, these would disappear along with the village community.

Next its states that the development offers potential for sustainable development to the benefit of the local community. If the village stays the size that it is, its longer term needs will be minimal.

As for the development providing an opportunity to address current conflicts from competing uses, most notably, heavy freight passing through residential areas; this I support, Brentwood Enterprise Park (CP7), with its planned location, next to the M25 would take heavy traffic not only from Station Road West Horndon but from other residential and minor roads in the area. This can only be a good move.

The Plan states, "to ensure that development takes into account long term community aspirations for the village, the Council will seek a community masterplanning exercise to determine the precise scale, nature and siting of development and associated works". This is a ridiculous statement, if this development were to go ahead, there will be no village and any amount of master planning excercises will not re-create to the community that West Horndon offers.

Another point I must mention is the Flood Risk. Whilst the village has been flooded on three occasions it has, many other times been saved from disaster due to drainage on the fields surrounding the village. If the proposed development were to go ahead both the new development and the village would be at a greater risk of flooding.

The larger part of the proposed development is within Green Belt land which is so precious in South Essex, please don't destroy it. It is a known fact that spending time in fresh air, open spaces and enjoying wildlife is good for your health. This must be good for the nation.

One question I would like to ask. Why is a small village like West Horndon being expected to take 43% of a large Borough's Development Plan?

To summarise, the proposed development would decimate the village of West Horndon. It is a known fact that village communities are generally less dependent on outside agencies and resources such as police, health services and local authorities. It is a known fact that residents take care of one another, provide their own leisure and social facilities etc, etc. Surely village communities are good for the nation as a whole. If development is to be made in the area it should be attached to existing towns where there will be little effect on such communities.

In conclusion, our own MP carries the title of "Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government". IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES AHEAD IT WILL NOT ONLY DESTROY AN EXISTING COMMUNITY, IT WILL ALSO DENY FUTURE GENERATIONS THE OPPORTUNITY OF LIVING IN SUCH A PLACE AS WEST HORNDON.

In your forward to the Consultancy document you state:
S1. The Councils preferred special strategy for the Borough aims to protect the Green Belt and local character and foster sustainable communities. This certainly has not happened where West Horndon is concerned, but it is in keeping with the constant neglect in almost all departments shown to this village over the last 50 years.

The plan aims to ensure development happens in the right place, where it can do the most good and least harm (to whom) with good access to facilities, such as healthcare, (non existent) parks, schools, shops and public transport. The Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected and wherever possible enhanced (you are intending to turn this village into a Town AND DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY) In planning a New Town you need to have regard to the present villagers who all moved here because of its rural location and village atmosphere.

P.8. States that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
(A) Are accessible to public transport. We have two trains per hour, which are already overcrowded, and no further room for improvement, and three busses in the morning that turn around at Brentwood and come straight back. There is only one bus back in the afternoon and that is the school run. (B) Will have no significant impact on the green Belt. This will certainly have an enormous impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt that separates us and no one else from the London urban sprawl at West Horndon.

P.9. Reason for rejection states: Development in remote locations would undermine the rural character of the Borough and increase car dependency. No thought has been given to the requirements of this small village when it is planned to treble its size. The roads that are available to us are almost inaccessible in rush hour and indeed we are often used as a rat run when overcrowding or accidents take place.

Any reduction in the Industrial Site will cause a reduction in employment in the village and no thought has been given to this. Plus, the place that it is proposed to move the site to will be returned to green Belt when no longer required by its present clients, therefore will not be available for use by West Horndon industries.

Both pavements and roads are full of potholes, some seriously. What action is the County Council going to take to this problem? Nothing in the proposals contains any change to this status.

Significant change will have to be made to the drainage system for surface water which is not absorbed by the fields will flood the village, and any surplus will go through and flood Bulphan which is in itself a flood plane. The flood alleviation scheme has been grossly neglected over the past 30 years so what hope do we have that this will change.

The Borough has seen this village as an opportunity to protect the Brentwood area and we have been thrown to the wolves.

Any hint of Travellers being allowed into this village will be met with utmost resistance and when it gets known that this is a possibility then no one will buy property down here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attached

I would like to provide the planning department with my views on the proposed development plan for West Horndon.

I am completely against any form of change.

An increase in the population will mean more traffic. More antisocial behaviours, more crime. Due to all the increase in crime the elderly will feel more unsafe and will be more vulnerable. As the area will have an increase in crime our house prices will drop and our insurances will go up.

See attached

Dear Sirs,
I would like to state a few facts regarding the proposal to build 1500 homes in West Horndon over the next 20 or so years.
1. Infrastructure (ie roads, better DR facilities, larger school (it is full already). When I moved here 57 years ago it was dwellings first and then it was years before roads, pavements, DR, school etc came.
2. C to C trains are using the railway to full extent and I understand no more "Commuter" trains can stop at West Horndon. Present ones are very overcrowded.
3. Drains and drainage, the main ditch running through the village was piped many years ago will it cope? Also the flood elevation scheme has been poorly maintained.
4.To conclude, I appreciate we have to absorb a number of new dwellings, eg 300-400 but a larger number would totally take away a "village atmosphere" and that is why people live here.

Having studied the proposed development for West Horndon I would like to strongly oppose the number of new dwellings involved. The proposal would change the whole nature of the village and turn it into a small town. The present infrastructure is totally inadequate -take for example the capacity of the railway station and the present doctors surgery. I would like to bring to your notice that there are already several sites in the village where planning permission already been granted but no building has taken place. Also in regard to the development of flats at the junction of Thorndon Avenue and Station Road several of these are still remain unoccupied.
The roads at present available in the village are not adequate for the amount of type of vehicles that use them and they would be totally unsafe in the event of a major incident. Station Road for example is not suitable for the number of extremely large lorries which use them i.e. they have destroyed the surface of the road and have become extremely dangerous.
The Station would be inadequate for the increased number of residents who would wish to travel for their place of work and for pleasure. Granted we have a station but the present bus availability is pitiful and as stated above the road network is totally unsuitable for the increased population to be able to access their places of work.
Also the proposed site for the new build is green belt and therefore unsuitable.
A further point to be taken into consideration is the potential flood risk and we have already been subject to flooding and covering the available green belt land would seriously increase the danger of serious flooding in the future.
Surely a proportion of the new population would be of school age and the present school would be totally inadequate.
Such new development would seriously impact on the present wildlife in the village.
I do, of course, understand that in order for the village to prosper we shall need some new development but the numbers proposed by Brentwood Borough Council is totally disproportionate. There are surely other less populated and therefore more suitable sites in the Borough.

London Development Plan 2015 - 2030
Proposed development at West Horndon

I wish to lodge my objection to the proposals for the development of this area, particularly the large increase of housing proposed. It should be remembered that West Horndon is a small village with only 800 households, to build an additional 1,500 dwellings would completely dwarf the village and destroy the very strong supportive community that exists. Since the housing issue is formed on the prediction of population increases it follows that preservation of farm land is just as important and attempts to build on it should be resisted.

No 'Flood Risk Assessment' has been undertaken, as required if a flood plain is to be built on, this is essential bearing in mind that there has been flooding here as recently as December 2012. In fact it is Government policy not to allow building on the Flood Plains or for that matter Metropolitan Green Belt. Any thoughts on a 'Flood Alleviation Scheme' would have to be a major undertaking, as water can only be shipped to lower lying areas south of the railway line and onto Bulphan and the surrounding land. Additionally building on Green Belt/ Farm land would reduce the water absorption over a vast area, the resulting water would not only cause problems in the immediate vicinity but would also add to the water shipped to the afore mentioned low laying areas.

With regards to transport links the major, A127, A128, A13 & A12 operate at full capacity particularly during the rush hour and only a minor incident causes gridlock not only on these roads but in the surrounding minor roads and lanes. Emphasis has been made on West Horndon having a station, but there are no plans by C2C to increase capacity; probably because Fenchurch Street station has only four receiving platforms which are at full turn around capacity during the rush hour. Therefore major expansion work to this line will be required to alleviate gross overcrowding if the proposed expansion to this and other areas along the route is agreed.

In view of the difficulties outlined above I consider these proposals unviable and therefore urge you to reconsider this scheme.

See Attached

London Development Plan 2015 - 2030
Proposed development at West Horndon

I cannot believe that we are sitting here in 2013 discussing a proposal for the building of 1500 new homes in the village, when in 2010 a proposal for a smaller development was rejected. This is a small village which has reached its maximum capacity for additional development. West Horndon has seen flooding only last year as a result of heavy rainfall; a potential development of Green Belt land to the west of Thorndon Avenue will exacerbate this flooding or ship the water to the other areas. I understand that Government policy of maintaining Metropolitan Green Belt land will be breached. Additionally the area in designated by the Environmental Agency as being at risk of flooding; the Government's policy is not to allow building in flood areas, so again guidelines are being ignored. Not to mention the loss of diverse amount of wildlife that I observe in the field to the rear of my property.

Having spoken to the planners I understand that this area was chosen for expansion because of the railway station and the network of trunk roads in the area. With regards to the station it has limited additional capacity and does not link directly with local areas such as Brentwood, it is merely a commuter line into Fenchurch Street Station which is limited to four platforms. I feel insufficient consideration has been given to the accumulative effect of other developments along this route for Fenchurch Street Station to handle this increase of commuters.

The road systems would not be able to able to cope with additional traffic including the small country lanes. A traveler's site is also being proposed for the village this is on top of the fact that West Horndon is being asked to take up to 43% of the development for the Borough which is showing an imbalance in your development plan.

These proposals will overwhelm and destroy our village with potentially just 3 people per household would result in an increase of 4500 people when we currently have less than 1900 people.

Having regard to the above I object most strongly to the proposed development in West Horndon. I believe much greater consideration should be given to relocating your plans to Hutton Industrial Estate, which is a large are already accustomed to the weight of traffic and infrastructure needed to support such a vast building scheme. It is also near a station and has good road networks around it. I believe that much of Hutton Industrial Estate is not in use and in much needed renovation.