The Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and supporting documents do not provide sufficiently detailed 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 will treble its current size whilst decimating a large area of Green Belt. Villagers did not receive 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. 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.
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. 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. I acknowledge that progress must be made and tha some development may be necessary. 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.

Although I am not keen on seeing my home village of West Horndon treble in size if the draft plan is taken forward in full, I am aware that new homes are needed and so fully appreciate Brentwood Council's thinking on how you have tried to address the issue. I do, however, think 1500 new homes is rather extreme.

My main concern is that the existing roads (Station Road/St Mary's Lane, Childerditch Lane and Thorndon Avenue) most likely to be affected and bear the brunt of increased traffic, are woefully incapable of doing so in their present state. Before any development takes place, it is imperative this aspect be addressed.

The same applies to ensuring sewerage and surface and domestic water drainage are properly catered for.

Other areas of concern are: (i) the effect of increased usage on the railway station - development of the station itself, additional car-parking (where would this be sited), increased train services (more frequent and longer trains?); (ii) healthcare provision - our doctors' surgery is currently a branch surgery; (iii) provision of green spaces and the retention of existing footpaths; (v) provision of homes suitable for elderly residents who wish to remain in the village but cannot, for whatever reason, remain in their present homes; (v) provision of childcare and schools (not of immediate interest to me, but will be to others).

The Plan refers to a possible circular bus route - we shall definitely need improved bus services; the current ones are very inadequate. At the moment, many of the workers at the present industrial sites arrive by train or walk if they live in the village. If the sites are moved as proposed to border the A127, then the workers shall have to drive there thereby increasing traffic and therefore pollution and noise etc. The bus route would have to be frequent, fit in with the train times, reliable and start early and finish late to ensure as many people as possible choose this option to travel to work.

Finally, the increased noise and traffic generated by building works even if only the industrial sites are developed shall cause major disruption to peoples' lives but even more so if the roads are not sorted out first.

One aspect of the Plan I cannot support is that of Traveller Pitches. I know the Council has to supply them by statute but the experience of people I know who live and work by such sites is that Travellers have no regard for the concerns of their non-Traveller neighbours. The examples of the Dale Farm sites (both legal and illegal) are what come to mind with their anti-social behaviour and real/perceived threat to safety and security of neighbouring properties.

Finally, although I am prepared to support the current draft plan, I would not support any further development of West Horndon as outlined in Appendix 2 as this would be a step too far.

1. I am objecting to the proposed plans for a number of reasons. Primarily it appears to be ill considered, inappropriate and 'rushed'. Specifically, how can any proposal suggesting that a small village of less than 1900 people, accommodate some 1500 new houses, be viewed as 'considered'? The fact that this represents 43% of the total development for the entire borough seems to be somewhat lopsided. The fact that the proposal does not give any details as to why and how this conclusion has been reached, amplifies my misgivings.

Expansion on this scale, virtually trebling the size of West Horndon, will overwhelm existing infrastructure, which in many cases is already inadequate. Traffic through the village generated by the trading estate, is a problem. Truck speeds are unsafe to pedestrians and damage roads and buildings (e.g. vehicles moving 20' and 40' TEU's already shake buildings as they pass). Broadband, essential for many tasks today, is a complete joke, operating at a speed that must warm the heart of any physical postal service. This brings me to my second concern...

2. Infrastructure. Roads, communications, water supply/waste management, public transport and education are all seriously impacted by the proposals. To bring these up to the level capable of supporting the proposed development must be implemented before any developments proceed - according to accepted national guidance of these matters. Is the money available to fund these significant upgrading programs without placing a considerable (unsustainable/unacceptable?) burden on the public purse?


3. Flood risk. Following the (actual) floods in 2012 and that the environment agency considers West Horndon and Bulphan flood risk areas, it is surprising that the council have not carried out any assessment of this risk. To develop in such an area is both reckless and potentially dangerous. The media's continuing interest in inappropriate development schemes ignoring prevailing evidence would doubtless expose any lack of rigorous assessment in this area.

4. Loss of the Green Belt. Many residents moved to West Horndon mainly because it is a village surrounded by open fields. The proposal as it stands and the scale of the development would destroy this. I understand that demand for housing is not sufficient reason for developing the green belt. Clearly, some small-scale development may be acceptable, but wholesale development on the scale proposed (tripling the size of the village) would only be acceptable to the completely delusional.

5. In summary; I consider the proposals as they stand are completely unacceptable. Some aspects of the proposal do have merit in that they would improve matters, but only if they are done in concert with 'substantial' upgrades to existing infrastructure. The change of use of the existing trading estate into residential use, would reduce (hopefully remove?) noise and the flow of heavy vehicles through the village. Improvements to the local broadband, drainage, healthcare and education infrastructure would also be welcomed so long as they occurred before any further redevelopment.

The existing plans are not sufficiently detailed as to how they address the numerous areas of concern raised by the residents. It appears the proposal is presented as a 'fait accompli' in an effort to protect the 'nicer' areas of the borough - why else would such a disproportionate level of development be concentrated on a village so unsuited to it. If it is suitable, where is the detailed eveidence???

Whilst I understand the need for some development on the industrial estate, I strongly object to the proposed scale of the development, in particular:

a) the proposed encroachment on Metropolitan Green Belt land - how can this be justified when its very purpose is to prevent exactly this encroachment from happening?
b) that West Horndon is being singled out to take an unfair proportion of the required new housing - at the expense of its Village status (and the loss of its village atmosphere).
c) As a commuter, that C2C and WH station cannot support an increase of this magnitude - services that are already overcrowded will be made even worse. Parking at the station is also inadequate as it stands.
d) The resulting deflation in property prices that could result from a glut of unsold new housing
e) The additional policing that 1500 possible new houses would require - if we treble the size of the village, it will need more police resource (and other services, such as doctors, as the current surgery cannot cope with the numbers that exist at present).

Hi. Me and my family have moved to West Horndon last weekend 28th September.

I have just received a letter about the development plan on the industrial site here. I am not happy about it as we have moved here from Basildon Thinking it was a village and not over crowded . Plus I don't think West Horndon can hold any more houses due to the flooding and drainage .

I also have heard a rumour that the council are looking into putting a traveller site here aswell . If we would have known this we wouldn't have moved here . We have worked hard to move to West Horndon.

I hope my view helps to keep west horndon as it is.

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

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

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

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

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

1. I object to the proposed size of the development as it will:
Destroy the fabric of current village life.
Cause unacceptable disruption to the current population, many who are elderly, over a sustained lengthy period.

Produce a community too large to be effectively policed by local resources.
Cause local flooding and infrastructure issues not currently experienced and demanding a dis-proportionate level of expenditure to manage.

2. I object in principal the siting of Travellers within or near the community of West Horndon.

The proposal of 14 pitches is clearly a strategic error.
The size of such a plot is practically too large. It will effectively create a no go area for effective policing, have a disproportionate impact on the current community re disruption, disturbance and an increase in fear of crime for the current community. The running of generators, movement of heavy vehicles, increased likelihood of fly-tipping in the area. ( Not necessarily by the occupants but others who will identify it as a site where the travellers would be blamed.)
To site any Traveller's within walking distance of public houses invites a potential increase in anti-social problems. The disruption to local schooling is unacceptable.
Any Traveller sites should be no larger than 3-6 pitches therefore affording a balance between rights of travellers and local residents, neither will be able to impose it's lifestyle on the other. The size of a smaller site lends itself to more self control by the residents and easier policing and management. The blot on the landscape is less impactive and easier to disguise.

I appreciate and accept that nothing stays the same forever, and that some development to West Horndon could improve our facilities and enhance the look of the village. By removing the Industrial Parks it is possible to achieve this. However, I do not feel that the Council has fully investigated the implications and practicalities of this development and therefore the information provided is sketchy and conflicting. There is not enough evidence to confirm that thorough investigations have been made and findings published to make a balanced and constructed decision.

Currently the people employed on the Industrial Estate have bus and train services to get them to work. The new site provides neither of these and the Council do not appear to have considered this and the possibility that employment will be lost.

With respect to the development of the green belt land to the north of the Industrial sites and the alternative suggestion that the Council could develop land in Station Road towards the A128 I strongly object. The demand for housing in West Horndon would be more than adequately provided on the Industrial Areas. The Green Belt should be protected and remain intact for the reasons it was initially put in place- to prevent urban sprawl.

As an alternative development area, would it not be appropriate for the Council to research the land on the A127, currently Timmermans Nurseries, which is up for sale?

Most people who live in West Horndon do so because they enjoy the small village community and a semi-rural location. The proposed plans to more than treble the size of the village remove all of these aspects and alter a village to a small town. The Village already has issues with flooding, water / sewage and other utilities, education, health and internet to name but a few. This is with a population of less than 1900. In addition, the Council do not appear to have considered the daily traffic volumes and the impact on the A127 and A128 which struggles to meet current demands. The existing infrastructure could not cope with the increase but the Council do not appear to have assessed this.

The outline proposed does not give sufficient information to make a decision and needs to clarify on research and evidence to support its recommendations. No consideration appears to have been given to wildlife and bio-diversity issues.

Finally I currently object to the Traveller Site being located within the village as no definite proposal seems to have been identified and it is left to speculation. West Horndon Village attracts families and focuses on a close knit community. It is suggested that the Travellers will not be families and therefore I do not feel they will fit in with our community. In view of recent events, with national news coverage, at Dale Farm, Buckles Lane Ockendon and another area in Brentwood I do not believe our small community could cope. We have little crime at present which is evidenced that we only have a visiting police presence.

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalization and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalization and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.

With reference to the above proposal for 1500 new houses and a traveller site I would like to raise an objection on the ground of
1 West Horndon is at risk of flooding my garden regularly floods
2 The drains are inadequate now let alone with the additional volume
3 The proposed site incorporates the Metropolitan Green Belt site. It is there for a reason and I fear that once it is no longer sacred where will it end?
4 The school will not be able to cope
5 It will completely change the look, feel and character of the village and sometimes more is not better.

I have lived in West Horndon, with my husband and two sons, for 22 years. I am appalled by the details of the proposed new housing development in the area. The development of 1500 houses would not only spoil the character of the village but would also destroy much-treasured greenbelt unnecessarily. I can see no reason why West Horndon is been asked to carry the weight of this burden when other areas of Brentwood will be left untouched.

Building on this site, knowing it is a flood plain, would also be utterly reckless given the recent history of floods in the area. It has also been suggested that the area is supported by a strong road network but any resident would tell you of the gridlock which is experienced by road users on the A128 every morning.

I am taking this opportunity to plead with the planning policy team to reconsider before real and lasting damage is caused; this development will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on the area.

The housing needs of the borough could easily be supported by a number of smaller, more sustainable developments on Brownfield sites, which are available within the borough.

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalisation and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalisation and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a resident in the small village of West Horndon and I am also a teacher at West Horndon Primary School.

I am most concerned about the proposals you have made to develop our small village community.

The large scale of the development you have proposed would triple the size of this village and change the small village character that we have here.

Why do we need to have 43% of the total number of houses proposed for the whole of Brentwood?

You have not explained why you consider West Horndon a suitable place for this development?

I recognise that a small development would be beneficial to the environment such as the change to the industrial site.

I live on Station Road and every night we have huge lorries coming past our home making the bungalow vibrate.

Taking the heavy industry out of the village would improve my life. It would also ensure that road safety to young people here would improve.

The building of new homes on the site however will add to the traffic congestion already happening on the A128 towards Brentwood where the current levels of traffic are close to breaking point.

In the morning when my daughter travels on the West Horndon School bus to Brentwood County High the traffic can back up across the Halfway House roundabout and further back creating problems for vehicles joining the A127.

Even more traffic that will be created from new residents in new homes in the village will increase this problem. If the development was to go ahead major improvements to surrounding roads would need to be put into place first.

As a teacher in the village school I am concerned that our small classes and ability to know every child will disappear if our school expands.
We currently have a "Good" school with "Outstanding" for behaviour(OFSTED) . This arises from small classes and a close community spirit
Building 1500 homes will totally change the numbers of children in the school and will require extra classrooms to be built on our green leafy environment.

There would also be an affect to the amount of secondary children needing to use our already over subscribed Brentwood schools.

I also consider that the proposed development will spread onto Green belt land which is ill-advised and sets a dangerous precedent.

The Green Belt is put into place to safeguard our countryside, we do not wish to have that safeguard destroyed by the building of a huge development.

I am writing to object about the recent proposal to build some 1,500 houses and traveller sites in West Horndon.

I have recently become a resident in West Horndon in June after purchasing my first property. Previously I resided in Romford, Havering. I moved from Romford as over the years i saw this town deteriorate drastically. The small village of West Horndon appealed due to its small village feel with close proximity to the railway.

There was no mention of these proposed plans within environmental searches before i purchased in June. If there was, I would have reconsidered.

I have noticed that since your proposal there has been a sudden spike in private properties being put up for sale, some by long-standing residents. Is it possible that their hand is being forced to vacate the village before their property loses value? The proposed traveller sites would almost certainly impact property prices. I certainly did not pay the West Horndon premium in June 2013 to suddenly hear that a legitimate traveller site will be allowed, which will have a negative impact to home owners in the village.

Question 1) why would you locate a traveller site in a village with good rail links to the city and other road networks.?

Question 2) would you want to buy a new home in a village or future state 'town' where there is a traveller site..? How will these 1,500 new homes be sold..? If they are not sold, will these then be additional social housing which will then drive down property prices and dilute the current upstanding and professional community.

Whilst I recognise that some new housing and new infrastructure would benefit the community and village. It is important to note that the shear scale of your proposed plan is too vast and West Horndon would lose its current identity.

I ask you to reconsider your proposed plans to provide the traveller sites.

I feel that the Local Development Plan proposed for West Horndon (CP4) is unachievable. The larger proportion of the housing allocation in CP4 is on land proposed by Brentwood Council is part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Metropolitan Green belt was put in place to prevent the merging of neighbouring areas, which in the case of West Horndon are Greater London and Thurrock. The National Planning Policy Framework states that: "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

The land proposed for development in CP4 has been identified as an area at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency Website. The village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. Any building within an area at risk of flooding will increase the water table, thus increasing the risk of flooding. If a flood alleviation scheme is put in place this will simply move the water to South of the Railway towards the village of Bulphan. There is no evidence of Brentwood Borough Council carrying out any assessment of drainage within West Horndon or Bulphan.

The infrastructure of the village is already at breaking point, with access onto the A127 and into Brentwood along with A128 at rush hour, regularly near impossible. The additional traffic from the extra housing will further add delays and problems to these roads. The train station is also at capacity with there often being no available seating once trains reach West Horndon. C2C have stated they have no plans to increase the frequency of trains or the number of carriages on each train. There is no evidence within the LDP that the infrastructure has been considered.

Although I am not opposed to some development within West Horndon, I feel that the number of houses proposed will destroy the village and create a unsustainable development with insufficient infrastructure, health care and education facilities. The doctor's surgery is currently at capacity as is the primary school. The proposed delevopment does not include any provision for additional health care or educational facilities. The National Planning policy states that the community should be involved in all aspects of planning decisions. With regard to Brentwood council's proposed LDP there has been no engagement with either West Horndon Parish council or the community other than the Roadshow which happened after the proposed LDP was announced.

In conclusion, I feel that with regard to CP4 of the LDP, Brentwood Council's plans are deeply flawed. The decision to place 1000 houses on land which is in risk of flooding is bordering on the insane. This land is also protected as part of the Metropolitan Green Belt which should be protected at all costs. There are limited resources within the village and there is no evidence within the LDP that these are likely to be improved, despite the proposed increase in population. The infrastructure of the village is currently under huge strain with regular delays into Brentwood and along the A127 at peak times and the train station and service will not be improved. It is clear that Brentwood Council's proposal for increasing housing on this site is not sensible or well thought out.

See attached

I would like to set out in writing my strong concerns regarding the proposed development of West Horndon. The proposed number of houses to be developed in the area - 1500, triples the size of the current village, most of which would be built on Metropolitan Green Belt land. We should be protecting our countryside. By developing on our green belt land you would be setting a dangerous precedent. National guidance states that only for exceptional circumstances should green belt be lost and I don't believe additional housing would be included as an exceptional circumstance.

Our neighbouring roads are already at full capacity. Travelling to London on the A127 is already at breaking point, even outside of rush hour times. If there is a slight problem on the A128 into Brentwood, the route comes to a standstill. The road cannot be widened. Therefore residents would be more likely to take their business outside of the borough - to Thurrock or Romford or Basildon.

Our Doctors and Primary school are already at full capacity. The bus service is infrequent. Our train station has no direct route to Brentwood. C2C have no intention of expanding the station or adding more trains to the current timetable for West Horndon. Therefore, an already busy station will be at breaking point.

As shown at Christmas 2012, West Horndon is a flood risk. Surely building further on the surrouding land would be irresponsible unless a lot of money could be ploughed into addressing the risk and being certain that you aren't pushing the problem onto our neighbouring areas.

We moved here to be part of a village and very much enjoy the close, community life that this affords us. You would be completely transforming our homes and forcing upon us a town that we didn't buy into.

Station Road is already a busy road. This development on such a large scale would be forcing a huge amount of additional traffic down Station Road,a residential street which many children use to get to school. The local communities are the ones that will suffer the increased traffic, loss of rural character and without any discernible benefits.

What impact will this development have on our countryside? What consideration has been given to the variety of wildlife that currently exists?

I understand change is a way of life and we all have to accept some element of development to our communities, but what you are proposing is ill thought out and will have a detrimental impact not only to the current villagers but to those in the neighbouring areas too. Loss of the brownfield site (the industrial estate) would cut out the huge lorries that fly down station road and so for many in the village this could be seen as quite beneficial. However an additional 500 houses is still a huge change for the village and services will need to be improved. In particular, as well as an alternative access route to the new site to alleviate some of the traffic down station road, I would also like to see a bigger doctors surgery with a proper pharmacy for the more elderly people in the village. To help link West Horndon to Brentwood more closely I would also like to see a bridge put over the a127 so people in the village can more easily get to Ingrave/Herongate/Thorndon Park and ultimately Brentwood. The village would also benefit greatly from a community centre to provide more services to both the young and the elderly.

I do believe very strongly in preserving our green belt land and can't see how building houses on our green belt can be seen as anything but harmful.

I am writing to oppose against the Local Development Plan for West Horndon. My family and I moved to the village for exactly that reason, village life, I have been working on the Industrial Park in West Horndon for many years and fell in love with the charm and character that West Horndon village offers. I firmly believe the LDP will have a major impact on the village and its residents; it will ruin and cause much pressure to the village, residents, wildlife and surrounding services.

I think that building on Metropolitan Green Belt land is a dangerous move. Green Belt has always been in existence to provide safeguard to the surrounding countryside and neighbouring areas, especially the wildlife. West Horndon has many different species of wildlife in the surrounding fields and these should be protected and not destroyed for redevelopment of land.

I feel the proposal of changing the West Horndon Industrial Park into dwellings is not the right choice, by moving the industrial park will mean the local amenities i.e. shops, post office, cafe, pub will suffer as the Industrial park brings in trade and therefore this will be a great loss to local providers. We should be encouraging employment growth to the industrial park not all businesses on the Industrial Park will benefit from relocation.


I do not agree that West Horndon is a suitable site for the size of the development that the LDP has planned, the proposal of 43% is quite a big chunk to locate into our village.

I do not think that enough careful consideration has been given to what impact it will have on the environment, surrounding area and amenities, i.e. Green Belt, flood risk, roads and junctions, schools and services G.P, buses and trains services to name but a few.

I hope the LDP plan is re-examined and that local resident's views are given full consideration, as we want to protect the village that we live in.

1. West Horndon is a small village - the 1500 homes will triple the size of the village - a size that west horndon will struggle to cope with.

2. There are only 2 roads going in and out of the village and these struggle to cope now so with the extra homes will struggle even more. West Horndon has a very limited bus service to get into brentwood.

3. West Horndon is on a flood plain with flooding only as recent as xmas 2012 - the homes on the Green belt area will be directly on this flood plain - putting not only the new homes at risk of further flooding but also the existing homes.

4. Our doctors struggle with the number of patients now and this will only be made worse with 1500 new homes.

5. The homes on the green belt are a particular worry as any building on green belt is not wanted to try to keep our green land green - this green belt in particularly stated as being metropolitan green belt so is even more important to keep green

6. With west horndon being so small - it is a worry that it will cope with any new building works on this scale. There are 4300 homes planned for the whole of Brentwood yet a small village such as West Horndon is taking up 43% of the whole amount - this seem wholely unfair considering the limited resources that west horndon.

West Horndon is a small village with only 700 homes - the 1500 homes will triple the size of the village - a size that west horndon will struggle to cope with. There are only 2 road going in and out of the village and these struggle to cope now so with the extra homes will struggle even more - West horndon is on a flood plain with flooding only as recent as xmas 2012 - the homes on the Green belt area will be directly on this flood plain - putting not only the new homes at risk of further flooding but also the existing homes. West hornodn has a very limited bus service to get into brentwood so any new residents will also have this trouble - our doctors struggle with the number of patients now and this will only be made worse with 1500 new homes - The homes on the green belt area are a particular worry as any building on green belt is not wanted to try to keep our green land green - this green belt in particular is stated as being metropolitan green belt so is even more important to keep green
With west horndon being so small - it is a worry that it will cope with any new building works on this scale
There are 4300 homes planned for the whole of brentwood yet a small village such as west horndon is taking up 43% of the whole amount - this seem wholely unfair considering the limited resources that west horndon has - only 1 small corner shop and 1 bakers we do not have any more shops than this

West Horndon is a small village with only 700 homes - the 1500 homes will triple the size of the village - a size that west horndon will struggle to cope with. There are only 2 road going in and out of the village and these struggle to cope now so with the extra homes will struggle even more - West horndon is on a flood plain with flooding only as recent as xmas 2012 - the homes on the Green belt area will be directly on this flood plain - putting not only the new homes at risk of further flooding but also the existing homes. West hornodn has a very limited bus service to get into brentwood so any new residents will also have this trouble - our doctors struggle with the number of patients now and this will only be made worse with 1500 new homes - The homes on the green belt area are a particular worry as any building on green belt is not wanted to try to keep our green land green - this green belt in particular is stated as being metropolitan green belt so is even more important to keep green
With west horndon being so small - it is a worry that it will cope with any new building works on this scale
There are 4300 homes planned for the whole of brentwood yet a small village such as west horndon is taking up 43% of the whole amount - this seem wholely unfair considering the limited resources that west horndon has - only 1 small corner shop and 1 bakers we do not have any more shops than this

West Horndon is a small village with only 700 homes - the 1500 homes will triple the size of the village - a size that west horndon will struggle to cope with. There are only 2 road going in and out of the village and these struggle to cope now so with the extra homes will struggle even more - West horndon is on a flood plain with flooding only as recent as xmas 2012 - the homes on the Green belt area will be directly on this flood plain - putting not only the new homes at risk of further flooding but also the existing homes. West hornodn has a very limited bus service to get into brentwood so any new residents will also have this trouble - our doctors struggle with the number of patients now and this will only be made worse with 1500 new homes - The homes on the green belt area are a particular worry as any building on green belt is not wanted to try to keep our green land green - this green belt in particular is stated as being metropolitan green belt so is even more important to keep green
With west horndon being so small - it is a worry that it will cope with any new building works on this scale
There are 4300 homes planned for the whole of brentwood yet a small village such as west horndon is taking up 43% of the whole amount - this seem wholely unfair considering the limited resources that west horndon has - only 1 small corner shop and 1 bakers we do not have any more shops than this

I have lived in West Horndon village for 25 years having purchased my home there in 1988.

My children have grown up here and would like to think I could enjoy my retirement in my current house in a nice village location.
West Horndon is a close village community with many residents choosing to live here for that very reason.

I have not spoken to anyone who agrees with the proposed planning development and nobody can work out why West Horndon has to take such a big proportion of the required housing in the Brentwood area, tripling the size of the village.

The key objections centre around:
- loss of greenbelt
- Flood risk due to building on flood plain (village has flooded in the past)
-Effectively West Horndon will no longer be a village, the whole character of the place will be dramatically changed (for the worse)
- amenities could not cope - there is only a small school, small Doctor's surgery and the bus service is very infrequent
- Railway station could not cope with more commuters and the C2C trains are already overcrowded at peak time. )
- surrounding roads would be unable to cope with increased traffic - they are busy enough already
- impact on the surrounding countryside and wildlife
- Other brown field sites e.g. ex Elliots plot on A127 are not mentioned but would benefit much more from suitable development being undertaken.

The above list is not exhaustive by any means, but based on the meetings held and information provided so far, it appears that there has been no consideration given to a variety of key considerations and the residents of West Horndon are very disappointed with the parties concerned who appear to have thrown together a hasty and ill-conceived proposal.

The residents of West Horndon are all very disillusioned with Brentwood Council and whilst nothing stays the same forever, we object in the strongest terms to a development of this size which will have major negative impact on the Village and the surrounding area.

I have lived in West Horndon village for 25 years having purchased my home there in 1988.

My children have grown up here and would like to think I could enjoy my retirement in my current house in a nice village location.
West Horndon is a close village community with many residents choosing to live here for that very reason.

I have not spoken to anyone who agrees with the proposed planning development and nobody can work out why West Horndon has to take such a big proportion of the required housing in the Brentwood area, tripling the size of the village.

The key objections centre around:
- loss of greenbelt
- Flood risk due to building on flood plain (village has flooded in the past)
-Effectively West Horndon will no longer be a village, the whole character of the place will be dramatically changed (for the worse)
- amenities could not cope - there is only a small school, small Doctor's surgery and the bus service is very infrequent
- Railway station could not cope with more commuters and the C2C trains are already overcrowded at peak time. )
- surrounding roads would be unable to cope with increased traffic - they are busy enough already
- impact on the surrounding countryside and wildlife
- Other brown field sites e.g. ex Elliots plot on A127 are not mentioned but would benefit much more from suitable development being undertaken.

The above list is not exhaustive by any means, but based on the meetings held and information provided so far, it appears that there has been no consideration given to a variety of key considerations and the residents of West Horndon are very disappointed with the parties concerned who appear to have thrown together a hasty and ill-conceived proposal.

The residents of West Horndon are all very disillusioned with Brentwood Council and whilst nothing stays the same forever, we object in the strongest terms to a development of this size which will have major negative impact on the Village and the surrounding area.

Regarding proposed plans for West Horndon I appreciate we must have some properties but 1.500 is rather alot for a small village like West Horndon.

Have you considered the flooding we have had in the past as recently as 2012 Christmas time building on the back of Thorndon Avenue I feel will cause more problems for the village. Our Doctors will not cope with all these houses nor the school. Our train service is not that great I don't think c2c will stop more trains at West Horndon, we have not got a very good bus service either which being elderly find very difficult to get shopping done in one hour.

If we are to have houses the Nursery I believe is up for sale on the A127 and there is alot of land there, also could a road be taken from the A128 to round the back of the park which is in Cadogan Avenue and you could get a number of houses there also the ground at Elliotts on the A127 which has been empty for years.

I know we must take our share of houses but please consider our small village as we don't want anymore flooding, also the Industrial Estate is a good idea to get rid of with big lorries passing through village but we must also think of the people that work on the estate and I have seen quite a number of people coming from the trains and how will they get to the new site which you propose.

I strongly object to the proposed plan to build 1500 homes in West Horndon This would treble the size of the village, changing the character of the whole area. This number represents some 43% of the total number in the Borough and why is the north of the borough not getting any??

My wife has sent an email expanding both of our views and I totally agree with what she has said.

I hope that you change your mind about putting so many new homes in West Horndon and changing the character for future generations.

People (like us) have chosen to live in a village location not a town and enjoy it the way it is

See attached