I have lived in West Horndon for more than fifty years, and I wish to register my objection to most of your proposals. No doubt you will have received the literature I have mentioned and you will be aware of the reasons for our objections and the feelings of the majority of the Villagers. My personal view is as follows:

I have no objection in principle to the proposed new use of the Industrial Estate. Indeed, if some reasonably researched housing is to replace the present noisy and unpleasant stream of lorries, I would be all in favour. However, I am most concerned about the proposed housing on the metropolitan green belt site from Thorndon Avenue to the A127. I was always under the impression that such sites are sacrosanct in perpuity, as they form a natural barrier between urban dwellings and the countryside. I am also very concerned about the inevitability of increased flooding in the area if the development goes ahead as planned.
As for establishing traveller sites in the Village, I have only one comment; the problem with travellers is that they don't travel.

I am appalled at the LDP that has been put forward for consultation, proposing 1500 new homes for West Horndon

West Horndon is special as it is a village that is very close to London, but has it's own character. It's not pretty, but it's most important component is it's people. We have a high proportion of older people, who at the moment are happy and safe. Children can play in the street - how are the council going to ensure that this doesn't deteriorate ? Our village has character - and we can prove it. That must not be taken away.500 homes will increase our village by nearly 75% - surely that is a big enough chunk for us to take ? Why has so much been allocated to West Horndon when Brentwood has 10 parishes - it is hardly fair distribution !



Infrastructure

What plans are in place up updating the railway and the train service ? If there are plans to increase the population, will there be space on the tracks and in the service for the necessary passengers ? I accept the train station is an asset when developing an area, but the trains only go in two directions - London and Southend (both of which are straight out of the borough) and there is no direct link up with crossrail. Surely to develop more around Shenfield, already a thriving town, would make more sense ? Other neighbouring boroughs have their own LDP's and this will doubtless impact on West Horndon station, with additional commuters either driving and parking or being dropped off. How much pressure can the line take ?

Will the necessary police presence, doctor availablity and pharmacy be in place before the development is completed, or will it be another case of too little to late ? Who will pay for these extra facilities ? I appreciate that the income will eventually be derived from the council tax from the new properties, but these facilities need to be in place as soon as possible. Who also will pay for the infrastructure ? The developer or us ?

The children will need to go to senior school in Brentwood - which will put even more pressure on the A128 as there are no trains that adequately make this journey.



Industrial Estate

I accept that building on the industrial park will be a good thing as it will eliminate a lot of heavy traffic from the village, but this influx of people will make our green belt even more important, and more people will benefit from the field which is currently under threat to the west of the industrial estate - as it will be bordered by Thorndon Avenue, Petresfield Way and the new proposed housing estate on the industrial estate. There is sufficient brownfield and windfall sites that can be built on - greenbelt is there for a good reason, as planners in the past realised and had the foresight to preserve it as such.



Medical concerns

My doctor told me that due to the air quality in West Horndon is bad due to us being sited in a bowl lower than the M25. Has this question been looked into ? The development of houses on the industrial estate will do nothing to improve the air quality, but surely taking away the large greenbelt field will make it even worse, leading to even more children being brought up with asthma and respiratory diseases. Furthermore the Doctor who has been in the village for many years says that they are at full stretch now, I trust that the medical facilities will be the first thing to be put in place when the development starts.



Green Belt.

Firstly this is Metropolitan Green Belt, which was put in place in order to stop exactly what you are proposing. This is not a exceptional reason to build on Green Belt, as there are still brownfield and windfall sites available. Agriculture is vital to the economy of our land, and by building on it we are reducing the food supply. Furthermore many, birds, butterflies and insects are on the endangered list. Building on Green Belt exacerbates this. This particular stretch of green belt is also particularly important as it is the nearest part of green belt to London - if this is breached where will it stop?



Drainage and Flooding

I am sure that you are aware that West Horndon suffered extensive flooding last year, and from our house we could see how badly the field to the north of our house was affected. Indeed had the field not been there, our property together with those of our neighbours would also have flooded. You are proposing building on that land. I trust that the council has adequate insurance to cover being sued for negligence if this comes to pass .



Alternative Sites

A the council, with all your records, you must have I am sure knowledge of all the available brownfield and windfall sites that are available. Your LDP does not explain why Wates Way and the Hutton Industrial Parks are not being developed, and the businesses there could be transferred to the new proposed industrial site by the M25 . Also the Timmermans Nursery is up for sale which is 13.5 acres. Although this is Green belt land it has already some commercial use on it, and is conveniently placed by the A127 for easy access. Why can this not be considered ahead of site 037 ?



Traveller Sites

How can this possibly be a consultation when you have put forward absolutely NOTHING about the siting of the proposed travellers sites? I am sure that this is negligent on the part of the council.



The points in the LDP that are so poorly thought out, that they would be laughable if this wasn't such an important issue to West Horndon - even if Brentwood Council don't attach any value to our way of life.

There has been no collaboration with the village, and we have certainly not been proactively engaged. An LDP should be robust and sound, and it seems to me that this plan is badly conceived and thought out for the reasons above.

I write with reference to the above development as a business at Horndon Industrial Estate; Business Name: Charles H. Fox Ltd.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development on the following
grounds:

1. Firstly, having purchased this brand new building only five years ago, I am now very concerned as to why Brentwood Council would give planning permission for a development of 10 new warehouses, only to threaten the owners with demolition after such a very short period of time. I was granted a 999 year lease and obviously expected to stay in situ for many, many years.
Brentwood Council MUST have known of this proposed development before my warehouse was built.

2. My decision to purchase in West Horndon was based mainly upon the following reason:
Location: As a resident of WH since 1967 I have chosen my staff carefully from the many people I know in WH. At present I employ 7 full-time staff (including myself) who live in WH. Three other long standing staff use the train to get to WH. We also have a shop in London and easy access to the London premises is essential. We very seldom drive as this is so time consuming and very expensive.
The staff in London also need easy access to the warehouse for many various reasons, hence purchasing a warehouse near to a main line station. Your proposal to re-deploy this estate near the M25 junction 29 is totally unsuitable for my staff and will have a detrimental effect on my business and staff. So much so that if the final outcome were to be compulsory purchase, it is extremely unlikely that we would go to the proposed new sit or remain in Brentwood.

3. Employment: Charles Fox Ltd., and many of the other businesses on the estate rely heavily on local residents for staffing and a huge number of staff use the train to get to and from work. Moving to the M25 will be very time consuming and expensive for existing staff who cannot afford cars. Aren't the local councils supposed to encourage local employment, not destroy it. There has been a working estate in West Horndon for many, many years and it has always provided employment for the villagers. My sister's first job was on the estate and my Mother also worked part-time on the other estate. For young people and Mum's doing part-time work, those who cannot afford or do not want to drive or those who also cannot afford the very high cost of travelling to work by train, this estate provides much needed employment.

Brentwood Council simply MUST consider this very important aspect in their consultations.

Another point on employment, 1500 new homes, must they all have cars or have to take the train, both very expensive, isn't it better to provide MORE work locally? Local employment must NOT be lost.

4. The Estate: This estate is extremely well run, clean, used, infact a very nice busy community in itself.
The Council MUST consider building the new houses elsewhere.

5. Village traffic: It is hardly surprising that the villagers who live in Station Road would be happy to see the Industrial Estates close, the noise they have to put up with during the night is excessive. This could have been easily remedied if the Council had kept to their plans to make a direct access onto the A127 many years ago.

6. Traffic: My staff who drive into WH are always complaining to me about traffic jams in the A127 and are very often late to work due to this. The A127 and surrounding roads simply cannot take much more traffic and 1500 new dwellings in WH will definitely have a grave effect on traffic in the immediate area and beyond. BC MUST take this serious matter into consideration.

The National Planning Policy framework says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions.

It also says that "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential". I would not be at all surprised if many of the businesses on both Industrial Estates have not sent any objections to the proposed developments, because they have not been properly consulted. Apart from my neighbour who found out very late in the day, all the other units along my row of warehouses (8 in all) were completely unaware of these plans until I advised them. They were not made aware by yourselves or the owners of the site, who when questioned, said they new nothing of these plans. ALL businesses should have been notified by yourselves, directly, in writing.

Not to notify them, directly in writing (letters could have been put in with their new rate demands) is extremely bad policy on behalf of Brentwood Council and appears to be underhanded. You have a "Duty of Care" to your business ratepayers and this has not been adhered to.

We are writing to register our strong disagreement with the proposed development in our village. We understand that the development will consist of 1500 new homes which will increase the size of the village threefold and significantly change its character. We moved here in 1999 specifically because we wanted to enjoy a more tranquil and rural environment which is very important to us in our retirement but this development will result in something akin to a "New Town" which has very different qualities.

We understand that this proposal satisfies over 40% of the Borough's requirements for the next 20 years and we do not understand why West Horndon is being singled out in this way. A more proportionate approach would be for a larger number of other locations in the Borough accept smaller developments.

Our main concerns centre on the infrastructure that would be needed to support such a large community-details of which have not materialised. It is unacceptable that consultation is being completed without such important information and it will be impossible to give considered feedback with so little information.

Whilst the current services such as public transport, access to GP and healthcare and local shops are already stretched, we are prepared to accept this situation when it is accompanied by the more positive aspects of rural life. The major roads around West Horndon are already full during peak commuter times so the potential impact of a further 1500 cars trying to join them would simply gridlock the village.

The main route via the lanes includes a railway bridge on a bend which would not be able to cater for increases in traffic of this magnitude. We cannot envisage how this particular stretch of road could be upgraded sufficiently.

Although C2C provide an excellent service into Fenchurch Street, the trains are completely full during the rush hour and again adding a further potential 1500 passengers would decimate the service for residents of West Horndon as well as those living further into London. We do not believe there is capacity for additional trains to run therefore people will not be able to get on the train.

Health care provision is very important to us and with many residents of West Horndon being of an older generation, any reduction in service could be critical. In the event that local GP's are not forthcoming, we will be forced to take to the roads and overstretched public transport to find such services.

We understand that much of the development will be on green belt land again this will completely change our environment. We have taken a very active role in restoring and maintaining the green spaces around the village and to work so hard for this benefit whilst great swathes of it are taken without proper consideration and consultation with the local community is unacceptable.

We would summarise our objections as follows:
We have been given insufficient information to have a meaningful consultation and therefore the council has failed to follow government guidelines on planning, in the absence of such information, we have grave concerns over whether a proper and extensive assessment has been carried out on behalf of West Horndon residents.

We are concerned that West Horndon has been singled out as an easy solution to the entire Borough's housing needs for many years to come .

We believe the environment of village will be significantly damaged by the loss of green belt land and the stress that will be placed on local transport and road links.
Access to sufficient healthcare services for the many people of our age group in West Horndon could be critically undermined.

We would strongly urge you to carry out a proper study of these proposals and demonstrate clearly and fairly how the community as a whole will benefit. At this point, we would be in a position to carry out meaningful consultation.

I would like to object to the proposal in the Draft Plan for West Horndon. The plan states that West Horndon has good transport links, this is not correct. The A127 during rush hour is more often than not at a standstill and any large development in West Horndon can only add to this. The A127 is classed as undersized for the amount of traffic that uses it and there have been numerous consultations with regard to improving the A127 but none of which has been agreed or carried out so therefore the A127 is not adequate. The only access to the A127 from West Horndon to go towards Basildon is by Station Road. Any large development of housing would greatly increase the amount of traffic along this road and the junction with the A128. The A128 can be very dangerous due to the speed and amount of traffic which will only increase when the new container port is opened.

In Core Policies CP2c it states that development should not take place on green belt land that is used for food product or at risk of flooding. The green belt land that is north of the factory estate has all of these so I cannot see why it has been chosen for housing. West Horndon has been flooded a number of times in the past and building on this land can only increase the possibility of flooding in the future. Any flood relief scheme would increase the possibility of flooding south of the railway towards Bulphan.

The village school is over subscribed and any new housing would require children to travel to other schools. This would mean that small children currently living in West Horndon would be at a disadvantage of attending the village school and therefore would have to travel out of the village to another school as there is no local alternative school.

At present the secondary school children attending Brentwood County High School have to go by bus to the school and this school I understand to be at its full capacity, therefore where will any additional children attend school? The factory estate has been a problem to the village for sometime because it has had a change of use from manufacturing to warehousing which has increased the amount of lorry traffic through the village day and night. The lorries are quite considerable in size and during the night do not adhere to the speed limit along Station Road therefore interrupting the sleep of the occupants in Station Road. If the factory estate is not developed for housing a new road from the factory estate to the A127 would then stop the necessity for lorries to use Station Road and St Mary's Lane to get to the factory estate. Most of the occupants of West Horndon I believe would support the development of the factory estate for housing which would increase the number of dwellings within the village it would not swamp it and the number of lorries would decrease. The green belt designated for housing would swamp the village and I cannot understand why 43% of the future housing development within Brentwood area is designated for West Horndon which would change the nature of the village to the disadvantage to the existing residents.

There is mention in the report for the provision of a site for travellers. The location and size of this site is not indicated within the plan so I cannot see how any comments can be made if the information has not been provided.

The report in Justification 3.8 States [To ensure that the development takes into account long term community aspirations for the village the Council will seek a community master planning exercise to determine the precise scale, nature and siting of development and associated works] I would have thought that this should have been carried out before the Local Plan was issued so I could have commented on something that was detailed and not an outline with very little substance or detail.

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

1. Size of development

The Draft Option shows the preferred option for Borough Council of a major new development of 1500 dwellings added to a small village community which is currently made up of 750 dwellings. The proposed development would triple the size of the village and change its character. The village would be asked to accept 43% of the development of the borough.

West Horndon village is mentioned in the 1086 Doomsday Book. The scale of the development proposed would swamp the existing village and would result in creating a new settlement that threatens to make the the current commercial and community centre of the village redundant or even polarise the village by creating a competing commercial area to the existing areas. The plans do not enhance the village but are a bolt-on to the village.

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

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This has not been done. For example the preferred options document makes reference to an evidence based and infrastructure, but is says that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". It is essential that the borough council provide a plan that address the following issues: West Horndon is several degrees cooler than the surrounding town areas and heating is very important in the long winter months, the broadband is very slow, the primary school and doctors surgery are already at full capacity and there is a legal obligation for authorities to provide school places and healthcare to everyone who needs it. The area is marked as a flood risk. The lack of evidence is not acceptable and full studies would need to be carried out and consulted upon before any agreement to develop takes place.

We are being asked to comment on a major and very significant proposal, but only being presented with an unfinished outline of what is proposed. The benefits for the village are unstated and unknown. There is no proposal of how the scheme might seek to mitigate against any harmful impacts.

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

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

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

The national guidelines state that 'Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies'. The plan presented to residents is still in its infancy and has lots of gaps (flooding, transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, public transport are still to be considered). Until this is carried out the proposal is neither robust nor comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon and the other sites mentioned above in order to accurately ascertain whether its plans are affordable. It is easy to build houses, it is another thing to enhance a community. The developers will build the houses and walk away leaving remaining problems and challenges on the doorstep of the Borough Council and West Horndon residents to solve and pay for.


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

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

4. Cohesion with local amenities
The last census shows that West Horndon contains 750 dwellings, with some 1900 people. The proposal is for an additional 1500 dwellings of yet undetermined density. This is a major proposal which will have a significant impact on the current residents and the proposed new residents. For example the village a limited range of shops (two corner shops, two fireplace shops, several hairdressers and beauty treatment shops, one or two small cafes. The corner shops shut at 8pm and the other shops are all closed by 5pm. The ATM charges to withdraw money. The majority of events running in the village hall run during the day. The village does not have a secondary school and has limited and unreliable bus runs to the schools. The bus service is limited and also unreliable (with perhaps two busses a day to Brentwood and return.) The morning commute to Fenchurch Street is already at full capacity and Network Rail have no plans to upgrade the station, the ancient cement foot bridge, the very dangerous pedestrian entrance (it has no footpath, frequently floods, and near constant low hanging greenery on the way in which includes rosebushes). Availability of doctors is over stretched, there is a three day wait and the surgery does not open before 9am or after 5pm and never on a Saturday, and it closes for 2 hours at lunch! The primary school is at full capacity and there is little for kids to do after school. Unlike the rail link between Shenfield and Ingatestone, the rail at West Horndon only leads out of the borough, thus a more reliable and affordable bus link to Brentwood is essential if the borough wishes to attempt to contain money within the borough. In particular if jobs are to be created within West Horndon it would be good if the council could support residents with in the borough to get to West Horndon and have access to these jobs. If the industrial estate located at West Horndon is to be moved to the M25 site then a reliable and affordable link between the West Horndon train station and the new industrial estate is essential. Shenfield will soon receive Cross rail and despite being advertised as 'end of the crossrail line' is in fact one stop to Liverpool Street and therefore makes access to Heathrow extremely quick indeed! Travel between West Horndon, Billericay and Shenfield is through busy, winding country lanes.

Creating additional dwelling would need a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; additional money and resources to allow the village hall to run classes and events after work hours; a completely upgraded bus service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood; the doctors surgery too would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and Saturdays.

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

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

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

The volume of traffic will increase through the village including additional trucks supply the shops and take away the waste. Back gardens currently not over looked will be intruded and the village will lose its rural character, so any development against existing really should be low level. Any development needs to be agreed by the residents and again, I say not one house should be built on green belt land.

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

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

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

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

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

9. loss of current employment
The brownfield site proposed to be used is almost 17 hectares of employment land. It will be essential that existing businesses can be relocated to near by sites efficiently, cheaply and with benefit to the businesses so that they are not lost to other boroughs in the area. We need to ensure that we local employment is encouraged.


I really do care for the village I have chosen to live in and welcome good well-integrated, robustly investigated and sustainable development. In the years ahead I will not wish to explain to my family why developers were able to walk away with huge profits yet able to leave the village with long-term, expensive challenges that the community and borough council have to solve and pay for.

I am writing to you to oppose the major development of 1500 new homes within West Horndon CP4 and the proposed traveller sites DM28. This is for the following reasons:

Impact on our chosen life
We moved to the village in 2004, being our second home and one we planned to put work into to create a family home, which we completed in 2011. We see that a village is a safe, happy and close knit community within which to raise a family alongside trusting neighbours where everyone knows everyone. Building 1500 more homes is going to destroy the village life and loose the history of the village forever and the life we chose for our family. I don't see how the Borough council has the right to do this to our lives, the one we choose and strive to achieve as hard working citizens. We will no longer live in a close knit community where we know our children will be safe. We will no longer know everyone in the area. The number of cars on our local roads will treble making the area very unsafe for our children to play as they do now. How do you have the right to change our village to a town/city this is not why we moved here.

Building on Metropolitan Green Belt
I thought that "the government attaches great importance to Green Belts to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open"

The larger part of the allocation is within green belt! I thought this was inappropriate and harmful by definition of the National Planning Guidance.
The government recently clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss.

Building on Green Belt is unacceptable and again destroying the reasons why we live here in the first place.

It is one rule for the government and a different rule for everyone else. If a member of the public just wants an extension or buy a piece of green belt to build a house it is a no go. However the government can simply put up 1500 homes where ever they like.

Impact on our property value
At the beginning of the year my neighbour said she wanted to move house, this was the ideal opportunity for us to move next door and complete another restoration project on a bigger property. We put our property on the market and we had steady viewings over the month but then my neighbour found a property to move to and had to move fast, there was cash buyer interested so she took their offer. We were always planning to stay within the village so we took our property off the market. We are now currently back on the market because of this development and gypsy site, at a lower price (£10K Less that the original valuation) as advised by the estate agent to tempt viewings under the current situation with this development notice going on. Since this planning development news and the possible traveller site news has come about we have had no interest at all in our property from perspective buyers! We have already dropped the price of our property £10k from the original valuation. What right does the government have to do something so detrimental to the value of our properties? We have put so much hard work, money, time and effort in to bettering ourselves and the future of our children's upbringing. All this will be taken away because of this housing and traveller allocation. Will we be compensated for the loss in the value of our properties?

The decision to destroy our village has obviously been made by someone who is not going to be directly affected by the decision they were making.

Impact of the Traveller sites
We don't have to look too far a field to see the impacts of the traveller sites. Buckles Lane in South Ockendon and Dale Farm Basildon are very close to home and are prime examples of what happens when the allocation of Traveller sites are located too close to open space/green belt. They soon spread into the open spaces around them with no regards to what they are doing to the land, fly tipping and general poor hygiene and disrespect for the countryside. West Horndon is not the place for traveller sites there is too much opportunity for them to take advantage of the open spaces and the way the borough are treating us residents at the moment i am sure they will have no objection to their expansion once there in! I really dont see how you expect to sell new properties along side a traveller site.

This too will have an impact on our family lives and the sociable aspect of the village as it stands today. It just will not exist anymore.

So too will it devalue our properties, are we going to be compensated for the change in value? Its already having a affect on us (as we cannot sell) and its not even here yet! We will possibly never be able to sell our properties and the whole area may become a much lower grade town with very poor community standards.

Impact on the Countryside and setting of the village.
West Horndon is a small low density settlement surrounded by countryside and the majority of which backing onto open countryside. We do not have to go far to encounter some of the extraordinary wildlife that surrounds us, Dunnock, Skylark, Kestrel, Tawny Owl, unusual butterflies and bats to name a few. All of the above are not found within towns as so will all vacate once development starts destroying their homes and the bio-diversity they bring. No consideration has been given to this!

Impact on roads and junctions
Pulling out of Thorndon Avenue onto station lane can be detrimental at the best of times without the increase in traffic from these 1500 new homes. There have been numerous occasions of near misses at this junction. On the Thorndon Avenue turning you cannot see properly around the corner because of the flats situated on the corner of the junction.

The condition of the roads are unsuitable for the planned increase in traffic. They are full of pot holes and far too narrow and of very poor upkeep to carry the increase in traffic.

At two locations along St Marys lane there are constant water seepages from underground which breaks through the road. I can only assume this is the water pipes underground. It creates huge puddles which the cars skate across causing collision issues. Several times a year these are attempted to be fixed without any success.

The junction or Station road and the A128 is always busy as it is. During rush hour times you can easily wait 10 minutes to be able to pull out onto the A128. The traffic starts to tail back along station road. This junction is already dangerous with the current flow of traffic both pull out and pulling into the village. At times I've felt like a sitting duck waiting to pull into station road which is very unnerving with children in the car. There has been many fatal accidents on this stretch of the A128 and this is going to increase the risk and completely goes against health and safety on this highway.

The proposed number of homes will also have a pollutant effect on the village's surroundings and ourselves as this will essentially mean at least another 3000 cars within the area.

Infrastructure
The infrastructure of West Horndon could not cope with an extra 1500 homes. The roads, station, bus service, schools, doctor surgery, play areas, shops, sewage, electricity supply are already not adequate enough. This comes at a time of massive cut backs from the government and I am sure the government will not throw money at this to get it right only giving the bare minimum. Or worse making the building contractor to supply the infrastructure when all they care about is profits and bottom line spending. This I am afraid to say is a recipe for a disaster for the local people, with the building contractors and MP's living in an unaffected area.

Flood Risk
Only on Christmas day 2012 the village was flooded and almost cut off. Many homes along Cardogan Avenue, St Marys Lane and Thorndon Ave were bailing out and the entrance to the church came very close. The industrial estate also flooded. So how on earth can you propose to put new homes within the village on our flood plains? The village also flooded in 1958 and 1981 and so Christmas day was by no means a first. Surely this is increasing the risk of flooding creating more concrete cities, this could create a massive safety risk by flooding the railway line. This too will have an impact on the property value and also our insurance premiums so we will be paying the price for this development. This to me does not sound like an ideal place to build a new development, I am sure the engineers and architects will say its ok to earn themselves lots of money but we will be left with the floods. I am also lead to believe we rely on a pumping station to keeping West Horndon from flooding. This would need a serious revamp.

Loss of local employment
Losing the industrial estate will mean a loss of local employment opportunities. It is not easy getting in and out of the village if you do not drive due to the current bus timetable and the train connection which although is C2C is still infrequent. So there will be possibly 4500 more people living in West Horndon and less jobs. This is just ridiculous this is going to contribute to more crime and again a lowering of the standard of living in the area with many people relying on benefits.

In conclusion I don't see how West Horndon has been pin pointed to take 43% of the boroughs allocation. Going on stats from 2011 Brentwood Borough population was 73,800 and West Horndon 1,482 of this. Having said all the above yes there is an argument that the country is growing but why not let each area grow as a percentage so not the change the village way of life. If you took an average of 3 people per home there is roughly 25,000 homes in Brentwood Borough and 500 in West Horndon. This equates to West Horndon making up 2% of the boroughs population, West Horndon should only take its fair percentage (2%) of the new housing. The new housing total for Brentwood borough is roughly 3500 so West Horndon should take its fair share (2%) 70 new houses?

No consideration has been given to the local residents who have chosen a village location. There are several detrimental effects to this proposed development for ourselves and the future generations destroying life as we know it and love it.
I hope these issues are considered seriously.

I am writing to inform you of my objections to the proposed building of 1,500 houses in West Horndon. The village already needs money spent on it as most of the pavements are unsafe and a potential trip hazard and like quite a few residence I have to walk in the road especially at night to feel safe from falling over - when money is being spent on new houses and roads I'm sure these old problems will be over-looked. The village has already been flooded this year and when you take away the fields and put in concrete it doesn't need a trained engineer to see what will happen. I also feel that existing houses and bungalows could quite possibly be demolished to make way for more roads that will be needed to make movement of more than 1,500 more cars possible in the village (which by then will be a town). The school and the Doctors are at capacity therefore more land will be needed to build a bigger school and possibly a medical centre. The village at present has an elderly population and if they wanted great changes and upheaval later in their lives they would like the opportunity to do this themselves and not have it put on them from their local council. I realise that houses are always needed but surely not this many in such a small place.

The draft plan to building 1500 new homes at West Horndon would increase the size of a small village setting to an unacceptable level and is totally disproportionate. No reason has been given as to why West Horndon has been selected to receive 43% of the total of dwellings under the proposed development plan.

I have been to the Council road shows and I asked various questions, but the Council Officers were unable or unwilling to give any answers regarding Infrastructure, time scales, Impact on West Horndon residents, Flooding etc the stock answer was "That's down to the developer".

How can we be asked to comment on a major development within our small community when we are only being presented with basic outline facts of the boundaries and location of the proposed site?

The loss of any Green belt land under this proposed development is totally unacceptable and against the government's national planning policy framework but Brentwood Council's plan suggests that green belt should be used in direct contradiction to the government's policy. Development on the green belt would have a major impact on the wildlife and the bio-diversity of the whole area and destroy the village community.

West Horndon cannot be deemed as a sustainable location due to its small size and due to its limited amenities, very few shops and no secondary school. The primary school is already at full capacity and travel to the secondary school is by school bus.

The road infrastructure in and around West Horndon will be inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic of this proposed development. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings going into London and heavy traffic Southend bound. The Proposed development traffic would have to use Station Road. If they wanted to head towards Southend, Brentwood, A13 or A128 as they would be unable to enter the A127 directly, causing traffic to queue along Station Road and blocking the junction at Station Road / A128

Plus the increased traffic using the surrounding country lanes will make the lanes dangerous.

The Railway Station at West Horndon & rail service in its present form will be unable to cope with the increased rail passengers. The number of passengers using the station at present makes you are unable to get a seat and its standing room only on rush hour services.
Probably making it impossible for people to access the trains at Upminster and beyond.

West Horndon and Bulphan are now shown on the Environment agency web site as being at risk from flooding, with the village flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2013. Any system put in place to try and elevate the flooding would put the Village of Bulphan under an increased threat of flooding.

No actual number of plots or locations of the proposed Travellers site have been given which I find unacceptable. Traveller sites bring fear of crime and disruption to the local community.

The draft plan to building 1500 new homes at West Horndon would increase the size of a small village setting to an unacceptable level and is totally disproportionate. No reason has been given as to why West Horndon has been selected to receive 43% of the total of dwellings under the proposed development plan.

I have been to the Council road shows and I asked various questions, but the Council Officers were unable or unwilling to give any answers regarding Infrastructure, time scales, Impact on West Horndon residents, Flooding etc the stock answer was "That's down to the developer".

How can we be asked to comment on a major development within our small community when we are only being presented with basic outline facts of the boundaries and location of the proposed site?

The loss of any Green belt land under this proposed development is totally unacceptable and against the government's national planning policy framework but Brentwood Council's plan suggests that green belt should be used in direct contradiction to the government's policy. Development on the green belt would have a major impact on the wildlife and the bio-diversity of the whole area and destroy the village community.

West Horndon cannot be deemed as a sustainable location due to its small size and due to its limited amenities, very few shops and no secondary school. The primary school is already at full capacity and travel to the secondary school is by school bus.

The road infrastructure in and around West Horndon will be inadequate to cope with the increase in traffic of this proposed development. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings going into London and heavy traffic Southend bound. The Proposed development traffic would have to use Station Road. If they wanted to head towards Southend, Brentwood, A13 or A128 as they would be unable to enter the A127 directly, causing traffic to queue along Station Road and blocking the junction at Station Road / A128

Plus the increased traffic using the surrounding country lanes will make the lanes dangerous.

The Railway Station at West Horndon & rail service in its present form will be unable to cope with the increased rail passengers. The number of passengers using the station at present makes you are unable to get a seat and its standing room only on rush hour services.

Probably making it impossible for people to access the trains at Upminster and beyond.

West Horndon and Bulphan are now shown on the Environment agency web site as being at risk from flooding, with the village flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2013. Any system put in place to try and elevate the flooding would put the Village of Bulphan under an increased threat of flooding.

No actual number of plots or locations of the proposed Travellers site have been given which I find unacceptable. Traveller sites bring fear of crime and disruption to the local community

1. Assuming 1500 homes have 4 people per home, that makes 6000 more people! add to that the 1800 who live here, that makes 7800.

2. then when you consider that travellers. so all in all, this isnt such a great idea.

We are writing to express our objections to the proposed development of West Horndon. Our objections are as follows:
1. Development of Metropolitan Green Belt
Green belt land exists to prevent urban sprawl keeping land permanently open. The proposed development on this land directly goes against this intention.
2. Environmental Impact. Loss of the expanse of open countryside as a result of the proposed development can only have and adverse impact on wildlife;
3. The proposal would increase the flood risk to an area already identified as being at risk of flooding by the Environment Agency; and
4. Moving the industrial estate to a location by the M25 will increase carbon emissions with employees being forced to use other forms of transport to get to their place of work rather than the railway as at present.
5. Impact on Employment/Business
Employees and indeed businesses may not be able to move to the new locations identified for industry due to the rental costs/facilities available/lack of transport (where public transport is currently used). May lead to a loss of local employment for those in the village that work in the industrial park.
6. Impact on the existing village
More than doubling the size of the existing village will undoubtedly alter the rural character of the village;
7. Existing transport networks (road and rail) do not have the capacity to deal with the additional volumes of traffic/passengers the development would generate; and
8. Amenities within the village; the school, doctors etc. do not have the capacity to accommodate the additional numbers the development would generate.

Finally, we remain concerned that any development plans fail to take account of proposals made/being developed by adjoining councils and the overall cumulative effect that this would have on West Horndon in relation to increased commuter numbers, road users and pollution.

West Horndon is a small village community and the preferred option will be a major development alongside it which will triple the size of the village and would change its character. The village has 750 properties and the proposal is to add 1,500 additional dwellings. I disagree, this is too many dwellings and will not benefit the village but only the developers. It will leave the borough council and village with many problems to sort out and pay for in the future.

The Doomsday book mentions the village of West Horndon. The scale of the development proposed is major and disproportionate, and does not seem to enhance the village but create an new separate village to one side.

An infrastructure delivery plan and flood risk assessment needs to be carried out before deciding to build any new dwellings in West Horndon. The public transport to the rest of the borough is poor and unreliable. The primary school is at full capacity and there is no secondary school in the village. The doctors surgery is at full capacity and takes several days to get an appointment. It would be good if additional resources could be made available to have the doctors surgery open before 9am and after5pm and on Saturdays. The broadband is poor and it would be good, essential indeed to have fibre optic broadband available in the village. We don't have a dentist, an optician, a chiropractor or a podiatrist. The village probably doesn't need permanent health care practitioners beyond a doctors, but it would be good to have easy available access to these. Especially for the older community.

The consultation exercise on a draft, premature proposal which needs more evidence before we can really feel properly consulted upon.

This plan and the consultation process feels to me to be done from the Council and planners down to the local residents of West Horndon. The local community needs and wishes need to be heard and acknowledged. I do not want building to take place on the proposed plot of 037. It is green belt and the only boundary to is the A127.

If West Horndon needs to accept additional properties in the village they should be built on brown field areas such as the West Horndon Industrial Estate. Other areas in the village are Elliott's night club former plot. and possibly Timmermam's nursery nearby on the 127. Development should be low density and tasteful in keeping with the village.

Other locations for development to be considered are: Hutton Industrial Estate, Waits Way Industrial Estate, Ingatestone garden centre. Also for north of the borough groups of houses with independent sewage system could be built, such as those in St Marys Lane.

I do not support building on metropolitan green belt, but if green belt land in West Horndon needs to have building then I might agree to building along Station Road if the park was extended behind the dwellings to provide a boundary. The extended and improved park would provide safe areas for walking in the dark winter evenings and could provide an exceptional benefit the village.

To enhance West Horndon it would also need a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; additional money and resources to allow the village hall to run classes and events after work hours; a completely upgraded bus service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood to access opticians, dentists, etc; the doctors surgery would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and on Saturdays.

The village is made up of a low density housing and surrounded by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years with oil seed rape, wheat and peas and provide food for the UK. Building on that green belt will reduce the land available for wildlife, loss of ancient hedgerows and borders, and will destroy the rural character of the village.

If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows were unable to give further information on the dwellings proposed and we would like an opportunity to feed into this. Delivery times to proposed new retail units will need to be limited to avoid noise pollution to existing and new properties on sites 020 and 021. new properties along existing houses should be kept low so as to avoid over looking gardens that are currently not over looked.

The 127 and 128 roads are already unable to cope with the morning and evening commuters. I am sure the developers will not pay to build an extra lane and remove several homes to help solve the problem. The junction at Station Road and the 128 would need to be redesigned to accept traffic crossing the A128 and will probably need traffic lights or a major roundabout. St Mary's lane is windy and narrow and has several small stone bridges. A modern cement bridge would be ugly and would not enhance the village.

The junction at the station, the industrial estate and village is dangerous. The proposed low level roundabout at the junction (which would then be a junction for 5 major exits) is insufficient and dangerous for children crossing the road to and from the school bus.

The proposal suggests that the remaining industrial estate and the new dwellings share the same roads which is not safe for children and the older generation.

The pedestrian entrance to the railway station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath.

The bus stop is beside the waste collection amenity site for the borough and the car access area doubles up as the bus stop.

Driving from the 127 to the village is dangerous as the exits are inadequate.

Plot 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It has had severe flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. Bulphan and West Horndon are at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency's web site show. Flood prevention in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

Sites 020 and 021 are brownfield sites and are currently employment land. It is necessary that existing businesses will be helped to relocate to near by sites and that the offer is attractive enough to avoid them moving to outside the borough.

Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies, however this plan is still very draft and has lots of gaps to be filled. For example around flooding, public and road transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, rail. These need to be carried out to make the proposal robust and comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon in order to accurately calculate whether its plans are realistically affordable. It is better and easier to find out before any dwellings are built.

See attached

I am opposed to the Draft Plan to build 1500 new houses in West Horndon for a variety of reasons:

Firstly, the issue of flooding, I believe that no proper flood assessment has taken place despite the fact that The Environment Agency's web site shows West Horndon to be at risk of flooding. This was borne out on Christmas Day last year when a number of properties in the village were indeed flooded. I believe that building an extensive housing development on green belt land will reduce the capacity of this land to absorb excess water and so the risk of flooding will become greater. Although the provision of a flood alleviation scheme was mentioned, where do you propose to put the excess water? If it is pumped under the railway line surely it will just flood Bulphan instead. I doubt if it is legal to solve one's own flood management problems by transferring them to another authority, it most definitely isn't ethical.

Secondly, I am concerned that the local road and rail networks will be unable to cope with the increased demand. Our local main roads A127 & A128 are already overcrowded and St. Mary's Lane that links West Horndon to Upminster is a twisty road with some dangerous blind bends that has claimed the life of some of our residents in the past, I dread to think what it would be like with even more traffic on it. During peak times our local trains are already overcrowded and I am not sure if the line has the capacity to increase provision. Bearing in mind that most residents will need to commute to work will put a great strain on the transport system, especially as I suspect much of this commuting will be by means of private cars due to infrequent trains and buses.

Thirdly, I am concerned that the proposal indicates that Green Belt Land will be built upon. If one area of Green Belt land is built upon this sets a precedent that any part of the green belt may be built upon opening up the real possibility of urban sprawl. I cannot believe this will create a healthy environment for anyone to live in.

Many of the residents actively chose to live in West Horndon as they appreciated a semi -rural, village location, this will be lost if 1500 houses are built as the size of the village will be trebled. What effect will this have on crime rates I wonder?
Whilst it is unreasonable to suggest that no new houses should be built in West Horndon a more modest amount (perhaps somewhere between 300-500 houses) may be much more acceptable, especially if it was a phased development over a number of years. I understand that there are other sites that could be developed within the borough that currently have not even been considered e.g. Hutton industrial estate. I do not doubt that Brentwood Council needs to find a substantial number of new homes but to build almost half of them in West Horndon seems unfair.

In conclusion it seems to me that residents are asked to comment on a major proposal without being given the full facts. Have the risks to West Horndon really been fully evaluated and how might problems be overcome? Until such time that proper assessments have been made and viable, sustainable plans have been made to overcome the difficulties made by such a building development I will remain opposed to such a scheme.

I am opposing to the fact that at no time were we informed of any plans to support the allocation of the amount of houses being considered to extend our small village.

please see below reasons for my objections:-
* The village would not be able to cope, we already have flooding in the village due to lack of maintenance, ditches remain blocked, pavements and roads in disrepair. The village is classed as a flood plain.

* Extra traffic coming in and out of the village would be a major issue, the roads and the bridge by the station are not designed to cope with the additional traffic not to mention extra buses needed to cope with the amount of people.

* West Horndon railway station is already overused , unless you get a train into London coming from Laindon you have no chance of getting on. 2 trains stopping an hour is not acceptable.

* Since we come under Brentwood council how would residents get into the town centre? Are you going to consider adding more buses and extending the time table?

* Our surgery already struggles with the people already in the village, unless you plan to become sick it`s hard to get an appointment.

See attached

See attached

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development under the Local Development Plan for West Horndon. This incredibly unfair document appears to have been cobbled together without actually assessing whether West Horndon is capable of this development for the reasons stated below and I wish to object to the Local Development Plan for these reasons.;

1. Major Development and West Horndon; This development would increase our village by approximately 300%, most people live in the village because it is just that, a VILLAGE, not a small town, we have been given scant information as to how these houses will be built and what type of housing they are, only that you are planning to build on flood plains and greenbelt land, how can the village as a whole possibly make an informed decision when the plans are so outline? Why was West Horndon chosen to take 43% of the total required plan when it is the least suited to do so, Ingatestone has far more amenities and facilities and would be far better suited than our little village, why was it chosen over there? National Guidelines state that Local planning authorities should assess the quality and capacity infrastructure, Water Supply, Waste Water and its treatment, Energy including Heat, telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, and flood risk, none of this has been carried out, or if it has, it has not been made available to the residents. In light of this as a resident I can only see a reduction in quality of life. This proposal has been poorly put forward and is ill-conceived and has not been investigated on the scale it should have been before putting before the residents for a decision

2. Neighbourhood Planning and Localism; The NPP framework (National Planning Policy) states that local planning authorities should engage all affected sections of the community in the development of local plans and in the deciosns made in Planning, and should facilitate neighbourhood planning, apart from roadhsows, which some the head of planning didn't bother to turn up, giving very sketchy details there has been no engagement and this plan has been forced upon us by Brentwood Council

3. Metropolitan Green Belt; The National Planning Policy framework puts great importance on Green Belts to prevent Urban Sprawl, Housing is not an exceptional circumstance to destroy our green belt as far as the Government is concerned, why is it for Brentwood Council? There are so many more options within the Borough for development NOT on greenbelt, why is West Horndon being victimised?

4. Is West Horndon a sustainable Location? ; At pesent, there are crowded rush hour trains, quite often commuters boarding at West Horndon do not get seats in personal correspondence with C2C they have stated they have no plans to increase capacity, in fact the current rolling stock would not allow for an increase, there is a very limited bus service, very few shops, the school is at capacity, it takes at least 3 days to get an appointment with the Doctor, longer if you work commuter hours, the trains that do run do not run within the borough travel within the borough is unsupported, considering the plan makes great propaganda of the Crossrail, this has no benefits to West Horndon.

5. West Horndon is surrounded by countryside, I alone in my Garden have visiting Pipestrelle Bats, Dragonflys, Great Crested Newts, Grass snakes, Pheasants, Dunnock, Thrush, Finch, along with a selection of Tits, blackbirds etc, the surrounding areas also host Kestrel, Buzzard, Tawny Owl, Water Vole, and many butterflies and insects. Yet the Planning Committee have not carried out appropriate studies in Wildlife and habitat protection, just stating that no issues were envisaged! On whose expert opinion was this decided? Why has no consideration into biodiversity and wildlife issues?

6. Flood Risk; The strategic allocation proposes a development land extending to 25 hectares, the village was flooded in 1958, 1981, and 2012, it appears from the LDP that no assessment of drainage has been carried out, when the Environment Agency show West Horndon and Bulphan at risk of flooding. Surely this should have been done at a very early stage before valuable Borough resourses were wasted writing the Local Development Plan?

7. Loss of Employment and Employment Land ; From Brentwood Councils own Emplyment Land Review, this confirms that Horndon Industrial Estate is by far the most valuable employer area in the Borough, and is suitable for protection, why would the Borough risk the lost of Jobs and Companies in moving this area? We should be looking at improving infrastructure to and from the industrial estate not destroying it. The existing companies pay fairly low rent on older buildings, in moving to new ones there would be a great risk of increased costs forcing the companies to look elsewhere outside of the Borough

West Horndon is a nice small happy community, why are Brentwood Borough Council seeking to spoil this?

See attached

See attached

I'm writing to express my deep concerns over the Council's Local Development Plan which has identified West Horndon as an area for 'significant growth'. West Horndon is a small village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself; the Ward has no more than 701 homes. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and completely change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment.

The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the LDP's plans being a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station but the station platform has already been extended and C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, and no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use. The trains are already busy leaving West Horndon at rush hour. The station has only 1 platform going into London. With so many new people to the village and quite probably using the trains, the safety of passengers piling onto one platform for trains that run at best, every 15 minutes would be questionable.

The LDP also talks about the aim to increase employment within Brentwood and once someone steps on the West Horndon line they immediately leave the borough and take their money and income elsewhere. We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly from West Horndon and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen this road any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only exacerbate the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. It can sometimes take 30-45 minutes to reach Brentwood and with such a poor bus service connecting us to Brentwood many residents shop elsewhere or travel by train to other towns and again leave the borough. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

Our secondary school children have no choice but to attend schools across Brentwood, by increasing the number of houses in this village you are asking secondary schools to increase their intake or find places for our children in locations beyond reasonable travelling distances. They have to travel by bus through Ingrave at the moment and more children will only increase the already heavy traffic through this area.

The local Primary school is already at full capacity and many of the families in the village moved to the village in order to give their children a more family centred schooling experience. Almost all of the children walk to school and there are very strong links between the families and accountability between them and the school. It is the reason most of our family have moved to the village. Trebling the size of the village would most definitely destroy this level of accountability. This is the character of West Horndon and I fear this level of development would ruin this.

Infrastructure will not be in place before the build starts and the LDP does not make it clear how this will appear or what will be provided. For the local Primary school this means having no choice but to take new children that move into the area before any funds and infrastructure can be put into place to expand it. There is a risk current families in the village will therefore not be able to get their children a place at the local school if they happen to live further from the school than the new houses. How is this fair? Without the sale of houses and a clearer picture of numbers of children it will be impossible for the council to clearly see what level of development the school will need. This will impact upon the education of our own children because class sizes will increase and teaching space will be reduced. Teachers will have no choice but to divide their attention between more children and this will inevitably affect the quality of teaching our children receive. No guarantees have been made to protect this or the future children who the school are forced to take because other local schools cannot accommodate them. Or families will have to travel to other local schools, which defeats the idea that most if not all the children walk to school and will only increase the level of traffic through Station Road.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctors appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood, a long journey during rush hour or roadworks particularly if it is an emergency. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? By trebling the size of the village the doctors surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increase of these numbers. No plans have been made available to show how this will improve. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is frankly unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 and A128 are already inadequate to deal with more traffic, which 1500 would certainly provide. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen the road. With 1500 homes being built in the village I seriously worry about the possibility of increased accidents and increased pollution and damage to the environment caused by more cars sitting in traffic jams on these already busy roads.

I am also very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. The fields above this area act as a soak for the waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which in itself has recently with heavy rain flooded many times (Removing the threat of flooding for many residents east of these field). Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The NPPF makes it very clear that no development should in any way impact upon other areas, which it most surely would. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. The Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land extending 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents backing onto these areas. Many residents including my parents who moved in this year in June are finding it extremely difficult to get buildings insurance because of existing flood risks and 1500 homes would most definitely increase this risk and I can't see how any of the new houses on the Greenbelt fields will get buildings insurance with the knowledge of existing flood risks. How can you responsibly build homes to sell knowing that insurance companies will not provide needed insurance to get a mortgage? There is no evidence that the council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be significant and it does seem ridiculously unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and no other. Why has a small village being allocated almost half of the total number of houses required in the Borough? Why has Ingatestone not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon that also runs into London? Both Brentwood town and Shenfield are getting 1000 homes and Ingatestone receives 130 homes and that's it?! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that as they have a station that they also receive a fair share of the allocation of houses. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land, however recent clarifications have made it clear that housing demand is unlikely to constitute justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I would like to see the Timmermans nursery on the A127 considered as an alternative site. Land which is Greenbelt, but already being used for another purpose. Why is the Hutton Industrial Estate not being put forward as a Brownfield site suitable for development, much like West Horndon Industrial Estate it has some privately owned areas and others that are not. Hutton Industrial Estate much like our own Industrial Estate also runs through compact residential areas and sees large trucks travelling by residents homes, which I'm sure they see as an annoyance. This would seriously impact upon the need to redevelop Greenbelt areas.

I am also deeply concerned about the lack of communication with residents over this period and the simple suggestion that this plan has incorporated residents' views. From when? I am not aware of 1 resident who was in any way fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LDP statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback!

The construction of such a huge number of houses on the edge of our village will destroy its open setting and rural character. The qualities that so many of the residents love about our village will be obliterated. We moved to West Horndon to live in a village, surrounded by open countryside. Your plan apprears to have fundamental shortcomings and goes against so many points noted in national guidance and the planning framework.

As my 8 year old son asked yesterday, 'Why would they want to build so many houses in a nice little village?'.

This is our comments regarding the above proposal.

My husband and I moved to West Horndon back in 2000 because it is a Village. A residential area with less than 1900 residents occupying its houses, bungalows and apartments/flats. We are both approaching retirement and saw ourselves living out our days in a small, community spirited environment.

Because of the now proposed development we feel that our life will be affected by the increased number of People and vehicles that BBC is proposing to inflict on our rural Village. There has been no thought for the residents of West Horndon, we have very poor roads in the village at present, and the increased volume can only add to the problem. All three entry points to the village pose significant hazards at present, and local residents just about cope as it is, therefore adding 1500 new homes will only make the original residents lives harder.

I am concerned that the proposed development will also affect our water and sewage system that struggles at times to cope with the present amount of residents.

I am also concerned that the proposed development will not be for the benefit of local people. We have two children who are trying to get on the housing market, but prices are too high. All affordable housing or social housing is taken up by other housing authorities to house their overspill and most of them do not even reside in Essex.

We object to the building on Green Belt, and the fact that the proposal implies that there could be even further development is a major concern. Our infrastructure cannot sustain this size of development, and the fact that you are considering building in a Flood risk area goes against all logical advice from Professional Agencies.

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, Kestral, Buzzard, Tawny Owl and so on. Butterflies such as the Small Blue, Red Admiral, Wall Brown. The Water Vole, Great Crested Newts and Pipestrelle Bats to name but a few.

The construction of 1500 houses on the edge of this village and the consequent loss of a large expanse of our open countryside will destroy its open setting and rural character.

Overall, our concern is that the people of this lovely little village are the ones most likely to suffer the harmful impacts of a development of this size, without any discernible benefits to them.

We hope that you review all the aspects of this planned development and put into place thorough consideration of what the residents of West Horndon have raised concerns about. This planned development is disproportionate in relation to the borough.

I recognize the need for more housing in the area & support the proposals outlined in CP7.

However, development in this small community should stop there,& I object to CP4 on the grounds that :
1)It would create an impracticable amount of increased traffic (on the village's already over-used main road);

2)Increased flood-risk (in an area that already suffers from flooding);

3) It would contravene the principle & ethicality of the existence of Green Belt Land.

I am writing to object to the proposed new house site in West Horndon. I live in Buphan and I am really concerned about the effect this will have on the area. Please see concerns listed below.

- loss of green belt
- impact on the existing village
- impact on roads and junctions
- loss of local employment (the industrial site would be developed for housing)
- and the issue which would most affect Bulphan - increased risk of flooding to the south of the railway line (i.e. Bulphan)

I writing in connection with the above planning application, I know the site well. I wish to object strongly to the above development of the amount of houses proposed in this location.

Apparently our village has been targeted because of the Railway Station which goes straight into the city. However, the station is operating at maximum capacity and they are no seats available from the earliest train going into the city, more commuters more problems .

I feel another reason for objecting to this proposal is our poor drainage system which affects all of us in the village. Please take time to investigate this.
Your statement that Brentwood can be accessed from Thorndon Avenue is totally wrong, in the A127 is a dual carriageway going away from this destination.
Station Road, being the main road out of the village is also operating at full capacity with problems joining the A128 at most times of the day.
The whole infrastructure in this village is at full capacity IE Doctors, Schools Bus Service etc.

In the last few years new homes of all types have been built in West Horndon and some have still not been sold, wouldn't building more properties have the same result.

This amount of housing should be reconsidered.

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

Subject: Objections to proposed draft plan for West Horndon

Dear Sirs,
I have several objections to the proposed development at West Horndon which ultimately plans to triple the size of the village.
1. Relative change in size - the proportional increase in residential dwellings for West Horndon would be huge, it represents 43% of the proposed total number of dwelling for the whole of the Borough of Brentwood. This is extremely unbalanced.

2. Lack of infrastructure to support - there appears to have been no published research on whether the current infrastructure can support such an increase in the number of dwellings.

3. Zero involvement from the local community - in the planning decisions so far, despite them being the people to be most affected by the changes. There is a severe lack of accountability for the decisions being made which will have a huge impact on the area. They appear to be being made anonymously, and without full and proper consultation.

4. Metropolitan Green Belt - national planning policy framework emphasizes the importance of the green belt and especially so the metropolitan green belt which serves to prevent the urban sprawl of London spreading out ever further to envelope the countryside of the south east. West Horndon is unique in being one of the first villages to the east of Greater London, separated from Upminster and the M25 by green fields. Any development will have a hugely negative impact on the countryside, the habitat of wildlife (for example rare birds, butterflies, water voles, bats) of which there has been no evidence of any survey into the impact of development on.

5. Village amenities - there are two tiny corner shops to support the village, a doctors surgery that is notorious for being difficult to get an appointment with. There is a village hall, and a primary school that is already full to capacity. Thats it really. What exactly is being done to address providing the amenities that a tripling in size of the village will require?

6. Roads - the roads and junctions in the area are inadequate and will not be able to cope with the significantly increased volumes of both construction traffic and eventually residential traffic. This could cause gridlock, and there have been no studies into the impact on traffic flows and pollution published of the proposed development.

7. Rail travel - with the existing C2C schedule only every other or third train stops at West Horndon. Commuting to London in rush hour you are lucky to get a seat at West Horndon, while at Upminster the carriages are completely full with people standing packed in the door areas and down the aisles. West Horndon already serves residents of surrounding villages commuting, as the packed car park is testament to.
In terms of sustainable travel within the borough, rail is of no use as there is no rail link to Brentwood. Given the dreadful bus services this leaves privately owned cars as the only viable means of travel to other villages or towns in the borough of Brentwood. Which impacts on the point above on road capacity.

8. Flood Risk - building on the green fields in the outline plan raises significant risks, it is aleady designated an area at possible flood risk, and the compounding effect of building on the land will obviously reduce the drainage capacity and thus INCREASE the potential risks of flooding for not only the new housing but the existing homes in West Horndon. There has been no study into the impact of drainage capacity, or the additional stress placed on the entire drainage and wastewater system in West Horndon.

9. Type and make up of residential dwellings - normal planning requirements dicate that new buildings should be in tune with existing make up of the village.
However even without seeing any proposed designs for the dwellings it appears from the draft plans that the make up will be at least 50% 1 and 2 bedroom flats, and urban-type ratio which is completely out of kilter with the current density and ratio of family houses in the village.

10. Traveller pitches - from previous experience most residents in Essex are under no illusions of the misery that the so-called traveller community can cause to village residents in terms of crime, general anti-social behaviour, rubbish, disruption of local schools, etc. This isn't even just opinion, statistics and reported incidents prove this.
There is an implication that there will be a traveller pitch in the vicinity of West Horndon, yet no details as to where exactly this will be. Every single person I have spoken to strongly opposes this imposition, and at the parish council meeting at the village hall I attended there were universal very strong feelings against any provision for travellers pitches within the West Horndon area.
In addition I would hazard a guess that the property developers will themselves object to having a traveller pitch anywhere near the village and their new estates, as there will be a knock on effect that will prevent them obtaining a reasonable market price for selling the new houses and flats.
This could be as extreme as making the project unviable for them. Has anyone even considered these aspects from the view of commercial property developers?

11. A personal point, I realise new housing has to be built somewhere. I have no objection in theory to new residential housing being built on the brownfield site formerly occupied by industrial estate buildings. I believe the development plan should be restricted to using the brownfield area, which will also reduce the total scale of the numbers to more feasible levels.

I look forward to hearing your response on each of the points I have raised.

West Horndon planning - save the green belt

I am writing in connection to the local planning development plan in Brentwood and particularly concerning West Horndon.

I live at [house number and street name], West Horndon, [post code] and I am a very concerned resident to hear that part of the plan is to build on Green Belt Land here in West Horndon. While I am all for progress I am hugely against this and urge you to reconsider urgently for the following reasons.

- On a personal note much of the reason we moved to West Horndon was to live within a village environment (not a town) for my family to enjoy West Horndon's landscape. Before moving to West Horndon some 5 years ago we researched whether the farm land at the back of our garden (037) was Green Belt believing this to be safe from any development. Please see picture WH1 attached of our current view from my home which was the No.1 reason for moving here in the first place. Please do not destroy this.

- On a similar note but worth a separate point is to highlight one of your own key points; you say correctly that "your aim is to protect the green belt" - how is this the case when considering building upon it?? You have to make a stand now otherwise what will be left for future generations.

- On a practical point I'm sure your aware of the flooding that occurs on this farm land most winters just the other side of my garden fence in the potential house build area (037). See pic WH2. This is a shot of the after effect of a stream which flows from west to east across the farm. Of course not desirable for building.

- Again I am keen on progress in West Horndon but 43% of the entire boroughs quota is far too weighted on West Horndon and hugely confusing that this is even being considered seriously?

In conclusion we are vehemently against any development on green belt land and believe there are other options in other towns within Brentwood without destroying England's green and pleasant land.

Dear Planning Policy Team,

I am writing to object to the Local Development Plan for West Horndon, in the most strongest terms. Residents who live here do so for the rural village environment and because of it's closeness to the country side. To increase the size of the village by three times it's existing size would make it a small town and destroy village life and its integrity. To impose this on villagers without concern for their rights is grossly irresponsible.

The current consultation appears to be somewhat amateurish and fraught with anomalies and contradictions. and no definitive proposals have been put forward other than 'development' which makes it very difficult to put forward informed comment on the consultation.

In particular, the general infrastructure and utilities are at their limits with poor drainage and overhead electrical supply to name two. The proposal to build on a Flood risk area (site 037) is grossly negligent and will affect the water table for the surrounding area and increase the flood risk. Site 037 is Green Belt and arable land that is constantly in production which is vital for sustaining food supply for the UK. The area is also teeming with wildlife some of which is on the 'amber list' for endangered species. Consultations with the RSPB indicate that a colony of great crested newts which have been in the area for more than 15 years, skylark, which nest on the site and water vole which have been sighted on the periphery of the land would be compromised by development. Varied birdlife in particular is quite prolific.

Additionally, the impact on the already inadequate road system of 1500 more residents shows a clear lack of foresight and to call it a strategy without considering the fundamental issues is clearly woeful. The fact that there is a train station is also a poor reason for development as no study has been made of the limited capacity of the train system. It would appear that the LDP has been hastily put together to meet certain deadlines and without informed thought, substance or proper consideration.

The plan goes against several of the NPPF guidelines and also central Government Policy. On all levels it lacks sense or robustness.