I have been in a village before who built more houses and it ruined the community, the local field and schools

The residents of the new houses didn't appreciate or respect the village.

We don't want more traffic, more problems

Thank you.

Proposed building of 1500 homes at West Horndon, Essex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

I am concerned about:

1. Major development in West Horndon
2. Encroaching on Metropolitan Green Belt
3 . Impact on Countryside
4. Impact on residential amenities
5. Impact on roads and junctions
6. Flood Risk

I am objecting to CP4 concerning West Horndon and the proposed development of 1500 new homes in the village. I understand there is need for some development and would not object to a sustainable development on existing building areas. I would not condone ANY development on green belt.
In the LDP it states that 1500 new homes be built in West Horndon which would treble the size of the village drastically changing the character and feel of the existing community. The scale of the development would effectively create a new settlement.
There is no evidence or reason why West Horndon should have 43% of the boroughs housing requirement.
It states West Horndon has excellent transport links, but the current transport infrastructure can just about cope with the traffic and commuters it already has. By adding 1500 new homes the 'excellent' transport links would collapse completely.
The train line cannot add any more trains or services to West Horndon as there are only 2 lines and these already run at capacity. The rush hour services operate a 12 carriage service and that is the maximum we can have on the line, later trains could have extra carriages but it's the early trains that need them which as stated are already at capacity.
The A127 is already at critical capacity in the rush hours especially going into London in the morning and heading towards Southend in the evening with long tale backs occurring every day. With the expansion of Southend airport this will only increase, factor in the traffic from 1500 new homes and we face further chaos. The existing access and exits to the A127 are unsuitable for the current traffic and would have to be updated at great expense.
The A128 suffers same issues and currently the access point via station road is a very dangerous junction for motorists trying to access the A128. Driving into Brentwood you have to use the A128 and the traffic is often backed up to the halfway house in the mornings. This can be worse if road works are in place or if there is an accident on the A127. There is no way that you could widen the A128 in the critical area of Herongate and Ingrave. Travelling in the other direction towards the A13 the traffic in the mornings is back up past Orsett and the Orsett cock roundabout is always busy. With more houses proposed in Orsett and the 1500 in West Horndon this junction would also require major works at great cost.
The M25 has recently been widened and could cope with extra traffic from 1500 new homes, however to access it you need to travel along the A127 and as I have already pointed out it would not be able to cope with extra traffic.
There is a very poor bus service at the moment with bus companies not keen to extend their routes into West Horndon. This has always been a problem. If by some miracle more buses were provided it would add to the traffic woes on the A128.
The LDP also states that our infrastructure is good with a range of shops and amenities. In real life we have a small local shop and a small mini market neither of which could be expanded but would be out of business if new shops were put in.
We have an oversubscribed Doctor's surgery which would need to be expanded if new homes were built.
The school is at near full capacity and would have to be expanded at great cost to accommodate the children 1500 new homes would bring. Currently the secondary education for our children is Brentwood based but all of the schools are oversubscribed.
There is a café in the village which relies on its custom workers on the industrial estate again they would lose their core business and be put out of business if the industrial estate was redeveloped into housing.
There is a restaurant in the village which would benefit from more customers. There is one local pub which again would benefit from more customers.
The infrastructure of our utilities would need millions spent on updating. Currently West Horndon's electric supply is main overhead and this would have to be put underground. Our gas would also have to be updated, there are many small gas leaks reported in the village each year.
The main problem is with our water waste disposal with our sewer systems unable to cope with the current output from homes. If we have a period of rain then the drains overflow throughout the village. There would have to be a thorough overhaul of the whole system.
Which brings me onto the flooding situation in the village. Having had my house flooded on Christmas day causing over twenty five thousand pounds worth of damage I am only too familiar with the real problem we experience in the village. The whole village is built on London clay and as such any sustained period of rainfall results in surface flooding throughout the village. When there is a prolonged period such as we had last year then the water table is at ground level which means we experience flash flooding causing damage to homes and property. West Horndon is on a flood plain having been part of the Thames flood plain hundreds of years ago. With global warming and rising sea levels it would be madness to build further on these areas. Furthermore these are not isolated incidents West Horndon has experience 3 major recorded floods in modern times but we experience continued minor flooding EVERY year. Our surrounding fields, gardens, ditches and roads are ALL affected. At present the fields in West Horndon act as a holding buffer for water flowing off Thorndon Park. If we were to develop on these fields then we would lose that and areas South of the village such Bulphan and South Ockendon would experience further flooding which goes against the national guidelines for LDP's saying that nod development should affect the surrounding areas.
In the LDP is states that there should be provision for employment. By proposing the redevelopment of the industrial estates we would lose employment. Hundreds of jobs would be lost, with no evidence of new ones being created. It says a new purpose built industrial park will be built, but there are no plans or evidence of this happening. It it's not build before the redevelopment then existing business will be forced from the borough. The biggest employers on the estate are haulage and courier companies. The reason they are there is easy access to the M25 and arterial Essex roads. For them to continue they would have to have the same or similar access meaning they would have to stay on the A127 and the only other industrial estates are Childerditch which is in Havering, Basildon or Laindon which come under Basildon or Romford which again comes under Havering. So not only would valuable jobs be lost they would move of the borough which goes against the core policies within the LDP.
The LDP in its current format is unsustainable for the proposed development of 1500 new homes in West Horndon.
If BBC could show that sustainable redevelopment of the industrial estates could be achieved with the necessary updating of ALL the infrastructure and amenities then I would not be against such a revision to the LDP.

Re: Proposed Development at West Horndon
We write to register our objection to the proposed development of the site on the west side of the village.
We understand that the proposal will lead to the building of 1500 new homes which would increase the size of the village to three times it current size. We have lived in the village for over 10 years and consider ourselves to be part of the local community. We use the local amenities including the doctor's surgery, the local shops and enjoy the peaceful nature of the area.
Brentwood Borough Council's Development proposal document repeatedly states that maintaining the rural character of the borough is a primary objective when any new development. West Horndon has definitely not been given the same consideration when taking the disproportionate nature of the proposed works into account and the negative impact it will have on our surroundings.
Having looked at the proposals and attended the public consultations, we believe that the development would change the character of the whole area. We have looked at the development proposed for the whole of Brentwood and note that West Horndon is to undertake 43% of the development. This is wholly disproportionate and will place undue strain on the resources available for the existing village population. No explanation has been given as to why West Horndon should receive almost 50% of the development, which would effectively create a new settlement.
No infrastructure plan has been made available. National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of the infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care and education, flood risk and its ability to meet forecast demands. There are also areas of the village already prone to flooding which makes expansion on the scale proposed very concerning. We have not been provided with any information and can only assume that it has not been done. West Horndon should not be being asked to comment on consultation without all the relevant information being available.
As part of the local community we believe that we have been marginalised throughout this process. The people who are tasked with making these decisions have not made consultation with the local authority a priority. Particularly the presentations have been led by those ill-equipped to answer questions as to why these decisions are being made without recourse to those that live in the village.
What is also of concern is the fact that the majority of the development is targeted to take place within the Green Belt. National Planning Policy Guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and harmful. Further, that exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt land. The Borough Plan focuses on the fact that this development will satisfy a housing demand. This is in direct contradiction to the position in Government that housing demand is not an exceptional circumstance.
As mentioned above we have lived here for over 10 years, and one of the main reasons for doing so was that it provided an improved quality of life for our family. The proposed development would increase the volume of traffic going in and out of the village, increasing noise and congestion. Driving out of the village is already problematic during rush hour mornings and evenings as both A127 and A128 are noticeably gridlocked.
The services in the village would also be overrun such as our local school and the local station, and we are concerned about what would happened to our local shops who provide services and jobs for local people.
In short, life in the village would significantly deteriorate, without any benefit to those that already live here.
We trust that you will take the objections we have raised seriously, and we look forward to your response to the points we have made.

Proposed building of 1500 homes at West Horndon, Essex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

The reasons for and against the development of West Horndon.
I understand that West Horndon should have its fair share of new development that 1500 homes is not acceptable when I look at the other areas around Brentwood with none or very little growth.
1. We are told one reason is because of the railway - but have any of you visited the train station at peak times - the trains are already over crowded and there is no way of having more carriages as the platform will not be long enough.
The car park is already full and there is no way or room to enlarge it.
There is no access for disabled travelers and that is no rail link to Brentwood!!
2. The roads around West Horndon are already very busy, and the road to Brentwood at busy times is trebled with motorist and is always chocker block.
The A127 is also a very busy road and we have our fare share of accidents now at the slip roads at the Half House - this is without all the extra traffic that there will be when West Horndon is enlarged.
3. As you are already aware the flood risk to West Horndon is great and building behind Thorndon Avenue would really increase this.
The Parish Council are working to get the flood alleviation scheme sorted, but I feel this going to take a very long time, and to have more housing on the green belt can only make this worse.
4. I am sure that once you have encroached on our green belt it will not be long before more housing will be going up and there being even less green belt.
5. West Horndon is a small village - which we hope to keep - we have around 1900 people and we have limited range of amenities and facilities such as shops, small primary school (no secondary school).
The doctors surgery is very busy already with up to three days to wait for an appointment.
The bus service is not great.
I have already mentioned the railway being inadequate and not suitable for a larger population.
I feel very strongly about the proposed sites and it is a definite no to site 37 but yes to some house on the industrial estate. I moved here to a small village and enjoy village life - if I had wanted to live in a town I would have done so.

See attached

See attached Report.

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

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

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

No Gipsies.

See attached

The aspect of the plan that I agree with is the development of areas 020 and 021, removing the trading estates and replacing them with housing & village facilities. I disagree with the development on area 037, part of the metropolitan green belt. I feel that this size of development would alter the character of the village and also present a flood risk due to the nature of the ground and lack of a comprehensive land drainage system. (Note past flooding in the village).

I most strongly object to the proposals regarding the plans for West Horndon.
These proposals as stated at the moment, would completely change our environment and peaceful way of life.
I also strongly protest at the lack of detail in the plan, which means a lack of detail to argue against in the up and coming consultation in September.
How can you consult in a vacuum!!?

You are reducing the already inadequate parking in the Town Centre and building more shops that is a great way to get people to shop elsewhere.

The new homes you are planning to build in West Horndon the parish council is right. The transport infrastructure is already stretched.

You say you prefer to use Brownfield sites. There are not any. The only choices you have are 'Green Belt' to which I object or compulsory purchase. I would point out that there is a dangerous offset cross road in the middle of the village. The proposed development will increase the amount of traffic using it.

See attached

See attached

The London Green Belt Council objects to the proposal in the Preferred Options paper to redesignate an undefined area of completely undeveloped Green Belt at West Horndon, for housing and/or employment uses. It is not clear why the extra housing is needed here.

The future evolution of the economy and housing demand is uncertain. Consequently, if the possibility of development in the next fifteen years cannot be ruled out, then we consider that the currently undeveloped land should not be designated in a way which means it can be immediately developed. It should be regarded as 'white land' and only released for development during the course of the plan if monitoring confirms that it is essential. The development of the other sites identified in the Preferred Options paper is likely to be more difficult than the open fields at West Horndon. Developers will want to develop the open fields first and, if that happens and the demand for housing does not increase as much as expected, Green Belt will have been lost unnecessarily and there will be unsightly derelict sites elsewhere.

See attached letter

See attached

See attached

See attached

I am writing this letter in response to the Local Development Plan Proposed by the Borough Council.
Having read through the proposal Document it is apparent that there are many important questions left unanswered and it seems that many things have not been properly assessed if at all.
The impact of such a development on the village and the residents of West Horndon would be significant to the point where our village would loose its identity and would be overwhelmed by the needs of the new development.
I am therefore lodging my objection to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The use of Metropolitan Green Belt land. The primary purpose of Green Belt land is to precent urban sprawl by the permanent retention of open spaces. This fact is actually stated in the National Planning Policy Framwork. Only in exceptional circumstances should Green Belt land be lost to development Government has clarified that demand for housing is not likely to be considered as exception circumstances to justify such a loss! In other words the need for new housing is not in itself a good enough reason for development on this site.
2. No evidence of any in depth assessment has been presented by the 'Council' into the adequacy of drainage/sewerage/power/gas and telecoms equipment. The absence of any such information suggests that it is no available and therefore no such assessment has been made.
3. It is also apparent that there has been no research into the effect that such a development would have on traffic flow on the A128 into and out of Brentwood. Or indeed the A127 which is already at a standstill at peak times. There is also no mention of access to/from the village being improved in any way. Transport by train, provided by C2C is, at peak times, running at or close to capacity and does not run into Brentwood at all. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that many more journeys will be undertaken by car on roads already full.
At the same time a brand new rail system and station is already in development in Shenfield. Seems to me that this should give some impetus to building more homes in this area?
4. Education: The existing school in the village is also at capacity and is not capable of providing more spaces for additional pupils. Unless of course the school is extended? (Since the school is adjoined by more green belt land. This can always be used!!)
5. Medical facilities are at best only barely adequate and would not be fit for purpose if serving an additional 1500 homes. Lastly there has been no consideration in respect of the existing residents of this village. This development will change the place where we live beyond recognition. It will impact on our lives more than anything else in recent years and while as residents of this village will expect some change, we expect it to be a slow process as all village's experience, not the sudden tripling in size such as the council is proposing.
By all means re-locate the industrial estate to the now disused site of the M25 works and build new residential properties in a residential area. This will help our village and rid of us giant lorries passing through out streets. But do not take away the Green Belt land as well!! It is because of our semi rural location that we want to live here take that away and everything changes. It won't be a small village any more and that will be the end of West Horndon Village.

See attached response.

See attached response.

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

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

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

RE: West Horndon Local development plan 2015-2030
Proposed erection of 1,500 houses and 14 Traveler pitches

I write in connection with the above planning application. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.

The prospect of such wide expansion in West Horndon should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the village while estate development would overwhelm it. The protection of West Horndon's visual, historic and archaeological qualities is also supported by Policy CP9 in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan; it states that "new development should foster a sense of place and local identity, respect, and where possible enhance the character of the area". Erecting 1,500 homes and 14 traveler pitches in West Horndon would decimate it as the village we all know and love. This plan fails to improve the character of this area and therefore should not be accepted.

Pressure for the development in the village is considerable, mainly for housing city commuters, but has been successfully resisted once before in the last five years. The reason for rejecting that plan included the inadequacy of the roads to accommodate even small increases in traffic. This huge expansion would triple the amount of traffic through the village and because road widening isn't an option due to current housing and field boundaries, it would cause absolute chaos. In addition, I am concerned that this would place extra strain on our already packed trains and near full school. These two infrastructures in particular would not cope with the proposed changes.

The proposed site of the development is particularly ill considered: it is on a greenbelt site. Sites like these currently act as floodplains. With the area already prone to flooding, I fear that if these were built on, flooding in the area would be worse and more regular. Building here would both diminish the striking view into the village from Childerditch lane and be prominent from most angles within the village.

Furthermore, there is no need for this kind of open market housing in the village and there is certainly no need for traveler pitches. West Horndon already has enough large houses: the only identified need is for affordable housing for residents who work locally, as recently confirmed by your Housing Department's Housing Needs Survey. As an alternative to this proposal, I would support the construction of around 250 houses built on the Horndon industrial park as I agree to the idea of relocating this industrial park closer to the M25. It would have to be ensured that these were affordable homes for local people.

I understand that the Parish Council and the rest of the West Horndon community share these concerns.

In response to the planning development in West Horndon I would like to make you aware of some concerns that I have:

1. Flooding is my first concern

2. West Horndon may have a railway station but it is full to bursting in the mornings and as far as I am aware c2c
do not have any plans to upgrade the system.

3. You may think that closing the industrial estate to build these new houses is going to be beneficial to residents of West Horndon but I do not agree as residents and others that work on the site will become unemployed thus creating hardship and when these houses are built then the residents that move into these new properties will also have cars vans bikes caravans ect going in and out of the village & will put our children's safety at risk.

4. Please could you explain why this development is being planned in West Horndon & to my knowledge other parts of Brentwood will not be affected on this scale considering Brentwood is a large borough & this should be considered very seriously as the roads schools & doctors will not be able to cope and I know that any building to this extent will affect mine and many others quality of life.

5. Please do not take the metropolitan green belt as this will be the slippery slope to ruin our countrside forever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have lived in West Horndon since 1957. I have raised my four children here. I am a widow of 5 years, and will be aged 86 on Friday 4th October. I object to the building of so many new houses in West Horndon and also object most strongly to having a gypsy site here. We do not have the amenities for all these people to live here. The school is full and so is the Doctors list. The trains are overflowing with passengers. You are trying to make a village into a small town.
To move the industrial site, could be achieved, but we cannot cope with more houses and more people living in the village without more amenities. When I die my daughter's dearest wish is to live in this house and hopes it will be the same as it is as present - unspoilt.

I object most strongly to the plans to build 15,000 houses and a gypsy site in West Horndon.