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.

I strongly object to the number of houses to be built in West Horndon for the following reasons - the drains and ditches cannot cope with flooding - our last one was 25-12-2012. 43% of the proposed new houses to be built in the borough, in our village. Increase in population so more private cars. We could so easily lose green belt. Where are the plans for the station changes? I think a lot more thought and replanning needs to go into this proposition.

See Attached.

WEST HORNDON

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

I am a resident of West Horndon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am of West Horndon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am of West Horndon.

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

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

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

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

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

I object to the proposed plans and am astounded that such a small village would be made in a large town and lose all its character & charm for the many residents already living here. I moved from a town to live in West Horndon! The amenities of schools, transport and shops would have to be greatly improved to cope with such demand and as there is not currently a great broadband network for the town which would also further suffer by more new demand. Much of the land is a flood risk and not suitable for such extensive construction especially on any Green Belt land!
I'm extremely concerned about the train line as trains are already full during rush hour when arrive into West Horndon station and further increased numbers would swamp the service as there are already people from 3 other villages using our station to commute to London.
I see no benefits in bringing the planned proposals to West Horndon and would only agree to a small number of new houses in the village on the industrial site as there are other more suited locations.

I am writing in regards to the proposed building plan in West Horndon of 1500 new homes.

I have recently purchased a property which directly backs onto the field which overlooks the industrial estate where the proposed plan would start. If my husband and I were aware of the proposed plan we would NOT have purchased the property. The proposed plans did not show up on a search which was complied on the local area by my solicitor to which has made us very angry. I STRONGLY disagree with the proposed plans due to the following reasons.

1. Traffic - there's is currently too much traffic leading onto the A128 & A127 in the mornings which lead to long delays getting out of the village, building more homes would make the situation worse.

2. Busses - there is currently only one bus per day going through West Horndon, for people without cars It would be impossible to leave the village using public transport.

3. Trains - not all trains come through West Horndon and to my knowledge only 1 train every half an hour for certain periods of time.

4. Schools - there is only 1 primary school in West Horndon and not enough to cater for the current residents living here. (we had to wait 4 weeks and an appeal to have our daughter enrolled). There are also no secondary schools in West Horndon meaning that all secondary school children have to travel to school.

5. Doctors surgery - currently only 1 surgery for the whole of the community which has a 3 day waiting list for appointments, this is important to my family as my husband has Multiple Sclerosis and my mother in law pancreatic Cancer more homes would make this situation worse.

6. Flooding - this is a major problem here in the village, more homes would increase the risk of further flooding in areas.

7. Wildlife - ruin the current wildlife we have by building up the area.

8. The community - West Horndon is a village with an amazing community, building new home would destroy this beautiful quite location.

9. House prices - we have recently paid a very large sum of money for our home, building more will decrease our property in value resulting in my family losing up to £20,000.00.

10 Green Belt

My Family and I have moved to this beautiful to escape from all the things listed above, please do not ruin such a beautiful village and community with the build of 1500 new homes.

I am writing to object to the impact that the local development plan would have on the village of West Horndon should it go ahead.

I have lived in West Horndon for 15 years and choose to move to a rural village to have my family. The development of 1500 new homes would radically change the structure of West Horndon. Our home is surrounded by open countryside and green belt land, the construction of 1500 new homes and the loss of open countryside would destroy the village open setting and rural character.

Any new development would greatly increase volumes of traffic through the village, the A128 and A127 struggle to cope with the volume of traffic at the moment without adding to this.

West Horndon and the surrounding green belt land is a flood risk area and therefore would not be a sustainable location for development.

As a resident of West Horndon I wish to make my objections to the Council under the formal public consultation to any development in the village.

I write with reference to the Local Development Plan and the proposed building of 1500 new homes within West Hordon.

As a new resident of West Horndon, I am very concerned. Moving here only 5 weeks ago, I chose this village due to the secluded location but accessibility to larger surrounding towns. To find out once moving in that my current view from my back garden would be replaced with houses rather than the current fields causes me to write.

I have therefore outlined below my reasons as to why this beautiful village does not meet the right criteria

1. Insufficient schools for an increased population
2. Current drainage and sewers are not adequate
3. Rail link is already at full capacity and would be costly to expand
4. Inadequate access roads currently and no way to increase
5. No other public transportation links (let's exclude 1 bus a day at 3pm)
6. Abundance of local wildlife would be affected
7. Local Major Roads already unable to handle traffic (a127, a128)

See attached

I wish to strongly register my opposition to the development proposed for this village. My concerns are outlined below:

1. The infrastructure cannot support 1500 new homes
2. No current school places available
3. Public transport insufficient to cope which only leaves cars
4. Junctions too narrow and crowded
5. Flooding and sewage unable to maintain current standards
6. Rural setting and wildlife will disappear

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRAVELLERS

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

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

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

My girlfriend and I are 29 and moved into Thorndon Avenue 18 months ago. It took us many years to save our deposit up, and we chose the village for its scenery, demography and village character.

If the planned proposals were to go ahead, the level of additional supply of housing every year for 15 years, the demography of many of the people moving into the new properties and the locality of the gypsie/traveller pitches would almost certainly negatively effect the value of our property. After working hard for all those years to buy our first home, we would then be unable to move house ever again given the losses doing so would incur. How could anybody justify this - destroying so much wealth.

Other concerns that I have are as follows:
- The level of housing proposed (>40% of the total housing requirement in Brentwood) is massively disproportionate to population of West Horndon. Irrespective of the available infrastructure, this would complete change the character of the village - indeed it would cease to be a village.
- This would build over Green Belt land unnecessarily when there are other areas with adequate transport networks that could absorb the level of housing build proposed in West Horndon
- Eric Pickles comments in the Independent 2rd June 2010 "It will no longer be possible to concrete over large swathes of the country without any regard to what local people want" and ""The previous government gave a green light for the destruction of the green belt across the country and we are determined to stop it." This is literally concreting over green belt land - it cannot be described any other way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/03/eric-pickles-concrete-green-belt [ link to article in the Guardian 'Eric Pickles: government will not concrete over green belt' Monday 3 Oct 2011]
- Your proposals will be trapping myself and my partner for many years in our current house, and we may never be able to leave as a result of the house price declines this will cause.- There is no guidance on the % of affordable housing in the West Horndon area
- What is the definition of affordable housing and what would the character of these properties be
- Where, specifically, would the gypsie / traveller pitches be placed. Does the council have a legal obligation to provide these.
- I understand there is a current motion in Parliament that removes the obligation to house gypsie / traveller populations - what is the progress of this and will the planned pitches in West Horndon be cancelled if this motion suceeds.
- The wealth destruction to the value of the existing houses would be enormous. In a society that aims to increase wealth, how can this proposal even be considered and what kind of incentive does it provide to even continue working and providing to the state.

With reference to your plans for the development of West Horndon.

This development must have been some few years in planning Why is it, none of the villagers were consulted at the very beginning of your plans, along with the farmers who green belt fields you need. It seems to us you have no understanding or indeed care, about the villagers or villages and there environment. Incredible, considering through our Council Tax we pay, indirectly for the planners.

You are ignoring, the safe guards of Metropolitan Green Belt. You are ignoring the very big risk of flooding. You are most certainly ignoring the residents of West Horndon.

If these unrealistic plans go forward, we the residents, will endure 15- years of development, or to put it another way 15- years of a building site. Is it not the case the Council Planning Department, assume that we will have to just accept these plans. I'm absolutely positive you will try to push these plans through regardless of our wishes.

We are an attractive village, its a great place to live, and its a great place to raise a family, and its a great place to retire. Has there been no consideration to this.

We are totally against these plans for the Development of West Horndon and respectfully ask, you the planners to take into account our wishes.

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

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

We would like to register my families objections to your proposed plans for West Horndon.

1. Infrastructure
The current infrastructure barely meets the needs of the village and would not be able to sustain a larger community. Both the A127 and A128 have seen a number of fatal and serious injury accidents and the local police continue with little success to enforce the current laws within the confines of the village. For example speed, parking and HGV. The polices' response time is also inadequate and poor, and a larger community will only increase crime, anti social behaviour and a heavier burden on an already over stretched police force. It is a stated fact that any new build will have to include a substantial amount of social housing and my experiences shows that this will allow your council and surrounding boroughs and London inner city councils to re home or place problem families within this community ( as it is out of sight and out of mind. ) The increase in size of the village would also have a financial burden on the residents that I am sure Brentwood council would not be responsible for. For example higher crime equals higher home insurance and more vehicles will increase car insurance.

2. Amenities
West Horndon is built within a flood area and has already experienced flooding in December 2012. Since we have lived in the village we have experienced a number of main drain over spills that has lead to excrement on our drives and pavements. It is a know fact in the village that the sewage struggles to cope with the demand. Therefore any build will also mean disruption to the sewage.
I am a current train user and know from personal experience that the station during rush hour is overwhelmed and has little scope for an increase in passengers. The car park too often over spills into the road. The shops within the village would not sustain a trebling of the house numbers that you propose, neither would the doctors, school or community hall.
The demolition and displacement of the industrial estate will also cause hardship and unemployment to villagers in a time of social disharmony. A number of villagers will not be able to relocate.

3. Travellers
Travellers already bring a well documented list of issues whereever they are housed and West Horndon already has a number of sites within a short radias ie Thurrock, Dale Farm a traveller site in Upminster and the A130. These sites although legal will often encourage illegal sites that the borough has already shown its inability and lack of interest to deal with appropriately and within a reasonable time period. There is no explanation as to why West Horndon has been selected when it was not considered appropriate several years ago when sites were being discussed. Other sites proposed are for only two or three pitches where as West Horndon has a minimum of 10.

4. Green Belt
The metropolitan green belt was set up to show a clear boundary between the city of London and its surrounding counties. Building on this land will reduce the identity of villages in Essex and other counties and will be swallowed up in the London Metropolis. Building on green belt land is ill advised and will set a precedence that will allow further builds. Other areas should be looked at such as the compulsory purchase of Tescos land at the end of Sawyers Hall lane or Childerditch that is several miles closer to Brentwood. This would cause less disruption to the community and have better access to current schools and amenities in the area.

Finally I would like to stress that I feel the consultation process has been flawed and lack of information and the inability or apathy of the planning unit towards us leads me to believe that as we are on the border of Brentwood it is easier for you to dump these issues on us rather than have them on your own doorsteps.

I would like to make a comment on the proposed Local Development Plan and how it may affect the village of West Horndon.

The plan does not provide enough detail of exactly why West Horndon has been chosen for such a vast remodelling compared to the modest developments to other villages on the periphery of Brentwood.

The village is a flood risk area and was flooded as recently as last Christmas. There is no detail in the plan about any environmental assessment having been carried out as to the impact of 1,500 new homes in such a vulnerable area.
Please will you provide details of whether or not this has been done.

The use of Metropolitan Green Belt land for building new homes is the most shocking point in the plan as I have been led to believe since my childhood that Green Belt land is sacrosanct and designed to prevent urban sprawl which is so common in many areas of the country.

Please would you explain why the council is proposing that such a thing could take place and if there are any exceptional circumstances which could possibly justify this.

In terms of sustainability, West Horndon does not seem to be a particularly good choice as although we have a train station, the services are few and far between and the trains are often full before they reach here.

What communication has the council undertaken with C2C to ensure that capacity will be increased to cope with the increased demand?

The road system in this area is heavily congested at peak times and junctions on to the A127 and A128 are inadequate with frequent accidents occurring.
How will the roads be improved to meet the challenge of increased traffic and will these improvements be carried out before the new homes are built?

I do accept that some development must take place in all areas of the Borough and I am not averse to any change in West Horndon but the scale of the the proposed changes seems to me to be ill thought out and not thoroughly planned.

At present, I feel that I have no choice but to OBJECT to these plans as there is insufficient detail in them to make them worthy of consideration.

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

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

I am writing with regard to the proposed development in the village of West Horndon.

Whilst I have no objections to a small amount of growth in the village, I despair at the thought of the plans you have for our "historical village".

My main concerns regard the transport infrastructure that we currently have. Our roads are appalling. They are falling apart as they are so over-used at the moment, even with the amount of houses we have here now - to build another 1500 homes would increase the traffic flow three-fold and make for even more noise and pollution to our homes.

My son waits at the side of the road for his school bus (there is no "proper" bus stop for children attending St Martin's) and reports to me how frightening it is with trucks and cars speeding by. He constantly moans at the amount of fumes he (as an asthmatic) is inhaling. To get across the one zebra crossing that we have at 7.50 in the morning is a nightmare as no cars or lorries stop - what would it be like with more traffic flow? It is only a matter of time before a child is struck either at the crossing or by the side of the narrow path along Station Road.

I myself use the station to get into London daily. Have you even visited our station? Have you seen how inadequate it is for the amount of people that use it now? Increase this and the station will not cope. We are lucky to have someone manning it at peak times (if not you join the huge queue for tickets at the machine and then you will most probably miss your train and then have to wait half an hour for the next one). We have no disabled facilities. Basically you cannot travel London-bound if you cannot use the stairs! Will this be improved? I doubt it. Certainly C2C have no plans on this. Plus, I thought the whole idea of developing the village was to bring more employment to the borough - surely by shipping people out to Southend and London this will have the opposite effect! People won't be spending their money in Brentwood.

Flooding is another major issue in the village, with Christmas day 2012 being an example. By building on our soak away green belt fields this will only cause more issues. Can Brentwood County Council guarantee to find me cheap house insurance if this is the case? No, I didn't think so. Not your problem. Well, at the moment it's not mine either (I guess I'm one of the lucky ones) but I feel this is something that needs to be addressed if you are to go ahead with your plans.

I agree that some development on, perhaps, the industrial site should go ahead, but what about the people that work there? Where will they be relocated? Has this even been considered?

You mention that "after the event" you will work on putting the infrastructure in place but we all know that 1500 homes will not get us better amenities, improve our surgery, our station, our roads, our policing, our school, give our children somewhere to go and things to do. For those sorts of improvements to be made you have to be talking about 4 times the amount and so then what happens to our historical village? It is no more. The only thing we would be guaranteed is a couple more shops and probably a take-away or two - well we don't want that - never have - never will!
1500 homes will just make our little village that works well become overcrowded. We will never get to see a doctor. We will never get a seat on the train. There will be more road accidents. There will be more pollution. We will lose our wildlife. We will have kids hanging around on street corners with nothing to do. Our school will be an impossibility to get into. The list is endless.

So before you go jumping in at the deep end and agreeing to all this development, I really feel you need to look closer. Yes, by all means give us some new houses, but I am sure that for the amount of homes that the borough needs to "create" there are numerous places around that could all take a "bit" rather than having such a damaging impact on just one tiny area.

1. Major development & West Horndon - the scale of development would treble the village I chose to live in and change the complete character of it and we have been provided with no explanation as to why we should accept 43% of the borough's overall development. There is no real detail to support this allocation. No infrastructure delivery plan has been provided. No assessment of infrastructure has been done - why? We have been asked to comment on a proposal that only has an outline - how can we really comment knowledgeably on that?? The Council are attempting consultation prematurely based on the evidence we have received.

2. The local community has not been involved as the National Planning Policy framework says that it should be. - why not?

3. The Metropolitan Green Belt in West Horndon which is a large part of the plan - according to the National Plan development here is inappropriate and harmful - why then is it in the plan?

4. Sustainable? We have very limited amenities, you can barely get on the train at rush hour, you need to schedule your illness in advance to get a doctor's appointment, although Brentwood is supposed to be our town centre unless you drive it's practically impossible to get to, as the bus service is so infrequent, new residents means more cars also - this clearly shows that the village is not sustainable as a site.

5. Has there been any thought given to the wildlife in the area at all? - no mention of it in the plan

6. Proposals are unclear as to the mix and proportion of land uses but appears to be mainly residential - reason to believe that there will be a harmful effect to the residential amenities of West Horndon

7. The junctions and roads as they are now are inadequate to cope with the traffic we already have - has there been any practical thought put into how this will be managed if we have transport for another 1500 homes? If there has been - it's not in the plan.

8. West Horndon according to the Environment agency (and most home insurance companies also) is considered as at risk of flooding - is it a good idea to build where there is a likelihood of flooding? - once again the plan doesn't appear to have been though through.

9. Where will the local business be moved to? How will the local people employed there get to work if they have no transport? - Local employment will be lost if this is not considered carefully!

10. The Borough based on the information I have seen does not provide a sound plan to be examined by the community and therefore cannot be seen to be responding to the communities needs and is therefore not really enough to go forward for any kind of approval - a serious amount of work needs to be done before this can happen.

11. DM28 - How can we even consider this when the plan doesn't provide accurate locations or numbers for us to consider? How is that West Horndon once again could end up with the highest percentage allocation in the borough? Once again, this can't be considered a plan that is actually ready for consultation - needs a lot more work before.

I don't in principle object to new housing, however , for the reasons outlined above the Council really needs to start again with this and work with the local community so a complete and correct plan could be consulted on.

West Horndon LDP

Dear Sirs, we must add our feelings of total dismay that BDC would even consider ruining WH village by the over-development of building 1500 new houses, and the proposal of a gypsy encampment so close to such a special area is enough to make you want to slash your wrists! WH is not the most scenic of Essex villages, this we accept, but it is a proper village, with scores of local things going on, and that is why we choose to live here. If we wanted to live among thousands of other people, we would move to Basildon or Harlow. You do not have the right to take away the quality of life that we have in WH. If you lived here, you would realise just how special it is.

Ok, we accept that the borough does need to expand with new/and or/ affordable housing, and we do have the necessary road/rail links. If any new development comes to the area, why does it need to be right IN WH? Could the proposed housing not be moved to an area say between WH and the A127, with some green areas and/or woodland planted in between WH and the new houses, but with road/footpath access into WH for trains etc. The new area doesn't even need to be called WH, it could be anything linking the areas, New Hordon, Horndon Heath, Fields etc.

And as to the gypsies, this beggars belief. Is this really what BDC wants to be responsible for, trashing the boroughs reputation for village life, as we know the devastating effect of gypsy encampments on local communities. Travellers (well, they don't TRAVEL do they?) must have places to live and put down roots, like any other person, but surly to God there must be other places within the boroughs boundry where their style of life doesn't ruin others. Gypsies like to keep them selves private, for ALL sorts of reasons. They don't want to 'integrate' with 'country people' as we're called, so it must be possible for BDC to find them some isolation away from WH where they can lead the life that suites them.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

After attending a meeting in Herongate last week we were asked to make formal comments to you regarding the above plan and our serious concerns.

It was pointed out to the Council representatives that the infrastructure deficiencies would need to be seriously addressed before any new building took place e.g. in Herongate and Herongate Tye we regularly suffer the indignity of sewerage flowing into gardens due to blocked drains, regular failure of water and electric supplies. Also refuse collections are often overlooked, inadequate hedgerow clearance and misplaced signs (green burial sign incorrectly placed on road).

Additional obstacles to be overcome by the residents for example HUNDREDS of potholes and inadequate public transport.

We are concerned of the plan for a dramatic expanse of housing at West Horndon where a village of 701 dwellings faces a plan for a further 1500. Your representatives at the meeting were unable to answer any questions or provide information regarding infrastructure for the new build. No information on drainage, gas/electricity/school/transport/medical facilities etc. We were informed there would be no extension to the railway where there is already adequate proof of overcrowded trains and car park.

We trust that adequate works and facilities would be put in place before any housing development occurs otherwise there will be a complete collapse in overburdened villages.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

As a resident of West Horndon for a number of years and moved here because it was a village and had a link into London and surrounding areas.

In my time in the village I have found that the people all care not only about the village but all the people who live here. There are many people who look after and support others in the village and the planned proposal would indeed take away the heart and soul of the village.

Whilst I fully realise that the whole of the UK is in need of new housing I do believe that more care should be taken when choosing sites and I can see that out of the total housing West Horndon would get the lions share of the housing which is not fair. Just how much is going anywhere close to any of the local councillors homes!!

I also have to object on a work level as I also work on the industrial estate within the village. My employers have only been on the site for 5 years and provide not only work for a number of people from the village but also others who travel by road and rail into work. My worry is where would the company be moved to as some people do not drive and have not another form of transport but the train and so may lose their jobs. The village also currently gets more out of the industrial site as many people who work on the site use the local shops and pub and this keeps them going. Lose the Industrial site and put up houses and I do not believe this would have the same effect.

There are sites suitable for a small building project very close to the village and as with the previous building project I am sure that what is promised will be very different from what actually happens. What happened to the sports hall previously promised.

Our roads, shops, school, parking, infrastructure including internet connections will just grind to a halt should this planned housing go ahead.

Re: Proposed Local Development Plan CP4 & DM28
I am writing to object to the above Local Development Plan, where 1500 new dwellings are proposed in West Horndon, this being 43% of Brentwood Councils total allocation for the following reasons:-
The scale of development proposed would effectively create a new settlement and there is no explanation as to why such a small village should accept a wholly disproportionate number of new homes. In fact the plan only shows boundaries, location and number of dwellings it might accommodate.
According to the plan 1000 of the proposed new dwellings are to be built on Metropolitan Green Belt. National Planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful. Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt Land; housing demand unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.
The Village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012 and on the Environment Agency's website both West Horndon and Bulphan show as being at risk of flooding. There is no evidence that the Council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area.
The impact on the residential amenities of the village would be such that the local community would suffer the harmful impacts of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernable benefits. In fact the A127 and A128 would undoubtedly be unable to cope with the levels of additional traffic that the proposed development would produce.
We have an infrequent bus service, whilst the local railway station provides a commuter route into London which as limited additional capacity and does not cater for important journeys such as to Brentwood, it simply runs straight in and out of the Borough and does not support travel within the Borough. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the village quite clearly does not offer a sustainable location.
No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife including some protected species found in West Horndon.
The proposals involve the redevelopment of some 16.23 hectares of employment land; will existing local businesses be relocated on nearby sites, or as part of the new development, as otherwise local employment will be lost.
There is also a proposal for between 14 and 24 Travellers pitches for West Horndon. No details are forth coming with regard to where these pitches will be situated, however the local Constabulary are unable to police more than 6 pitches, which would result in a "No Go" area and the safety of villagers must be considered when such allocations are made.
In conclusion, I do not believe that we have been provided with a sound and robust plan as there are clearly fundamental shortcomings. I have no objections to the village growing naturally, with a mixed development including Warden Controlled properties, so that elderly Villagers have an opportunity to stay in the Village but not out of all proportion to its size and amenities.

1. Major development & West Horndon - the scale of development would treble the village I chose to live in and change the complete character of it and we have been provided with no explanation as to why we should accept 43% of the borough's overall development. There is no real detail to support this allocation. No infrastructure delivery plan has been provided. No assessment of infrastructure has been don - why? We have been asked to comment on a proposal that only has an outline - how can we really comment knowledgeably on that?? The Council are attempting consultation prematurely based on the evidence we have received.

2. The local community has not been involved as the National Planning Policy framework says that it should be. - why not?

3. The Metropolitan Green Belt are in West Horndon which is a large part of the plan - according to the National Plan development here is inappropriate and harmful - why then is it in the plan?

4. Sustainable? We have very limited amenities, you can barely get on the train at rush hour, you need to schedule your illness in advance to get a doctor's appointment, although Brentwood is supposed to be our town centre unless you drive it's practically impossible to get to as the bus service is so infrequent, new residents means more cars also - this clearly shows that the village is not sustainable as a site.

5. Has there been any though given to the wildlife in the area at all? - no mention of it in the plan

6. Proposals areunclear as to the mix and proportion of land uses but appears to be mainly residential - reason to believe that there will be a harmful effect to the residential amenities of West Horndon

7. The junctions and roads as they are now are inadequate to cope with the traffic we already have - has there been any practical thought put into how this will be managed if we have transport for another 1500 homes? If there has been - it's not in the plan.

8. West Horndon according to the Environment agency (and most home insurance companies also) is considered as at risk of flooding - is it a good idea to build where there is a likelihood of flooding? - once again the plan doesn't appear to have been though through.

9. Where will the local business be moved too? How will the local people employed there get to work if they have no transport? - Local employment will be lost if this is not considered carefully!

10. The Borough based on the information I have seen does not provide a sound plan to be examined by the community and therefore cannot be seen to be responding to the communities needs and is therefore not really enough to go forward for any kind of approval - a serious amount of work needs to be done before this can happem

11. DM28 - How can we even consider this when the plan doesn't provide accurate locations or numbers for us to consider? How is that West Horndon once again could end up with the highest percentage allocation in the borough? Once again, this can't be considered a plan that is actuall ready for consultation - needs a lot more work before.

I have lived in West Horndon for over 40 years and chose to live here once I reached adulthood for the quality of life living in the village would provide, this would fundamentally change based on the Council's ill conceived plan. The Council really needs to start again with this and work with the local community so a complete and correct plan could be consulted on.

See Attached