I strongly object to the proposal of 1500 new homes and 14 traveller pitches to be located in West Horndon:
- The current transport infrastructure is currently at or near full capacity.
- The primary school is currently over-subscribed.
- The catchment area secondary school is at full capacity (Brentwood County High)
- The Doctors surgery is over-subscribed.
- The proposed location for 66% of the new homes is a flood plain.
- The proposed location is green belt.
- The inclusion of a travellers site would de-value the Village and surrounding areas.
- The proposed location of the new industrial estate has zero public transportation connections.

As a concerned resident of West Horndon, I attended both the public meeting attended by one of your planning staff and the road show in the village hall. I have the following concerns:

1. Looking at the map of the borough that was on display at the road show I could see that West Horndon accounted for less than 5% of the borough`s area, yet we are to get 43% of the development. This is patently unfair and would turn our village into a town!

If the proposed development went ahead then there are approximately 12 other villages in the Brentwood area to share the burden, which would equate at around 330 properties per village/town.

2 As a village, we have been prepared to accept the development of the brownfield sites , which would allow around 500 properties almost doubling the size of the village, surely this is a reasonable quantity!

3. Should green belt be allowed to be developed on, then who profits from turning cheap arable land
into prime building land? Is it the farmer or the developer or both? If so, should the village not be the beneficiary as well

4 From the plans I have seen.I don`t think enough consideration has ben given reducing the flood risk if green belt id developed.

5 Developers have a habit of changing their plans once planning permission has been granted.
How can we be sure that housing density will not increase and promised amenities will not be honoured ?

6. The impression given to me by your planning personnel is that of a fait accompli as far as West Horndons development is concerned. If this is the case then why have a consultation road show.

I think you will find that there are very few residents that approve of the scale of your proposed development and that you should consider a more equitable approach and spread things out more.

Finally, as far as traveller sites go, how can we comment on such a vague proposal when no locations are mentioned?

Having now had time to assess the proposed plan for Brentwood's development, as a West Horndon resident I write to express my thoughts and concerns for the plans for the village I live in, but firstly I would like to express my extreme disappointment to learn of such a large scale project proposal via the front page of the local newspaper, and without any prior notice or consultation with myself and fellow residents of what is in my opinion a truly great village, and one that should be treated with the equal respect that is shown by those people who have made it their home. I appreciate that work has been done in the last few weeks, and I am truly grateful to all those people involved within the local council and our own parish council, but to see front page news a few weeks back for a plan to treble the size of the population in the area that you live in is truly shocking. In a nutshell, on a personal note, trying to give you some perspective of how one receives such news, this projected plan leaves me, and I certainly feel many of my fellow residents, with a feeling of a lack of respect paid to us by this proposal, ft's unpleasant, it feels like an attack on your way of life, this is the reality, and I am concerned that such a likely reaction has not been considered well in this proposal, and if it actually has, I put it to you that there clearly exists a lack of respect for the people of this village. The sheer size of this project naturally delivers a threat to the way of life we enjoy here currently, and it doesn't take a genius to identify there are inherent risks, and that significant changes in infrastructure will be required. I am truly astounded that some of the key discussions that are critical to this project such as the impact on the local school, our roads, the increase on the rail-passengers, flood risk, do not seem to have been researched at all well at this stage, if at all. To hear this lack of research after learning of the project and its scale in your local paper is very disappointing. The people of West Horndon are a great community, and are worthy of better treatment, and a less dramatic and better researched proposal for change in their neighbourhood. Despite the positive intentions of this project, and one can of course understand these intentions and the opportunities that West Horndon may provide for new settlement, we should not ignore what makes this village great and the community it has become today. There exists within the plan a great risk of destroying this community as we know it with the scale of this project and the lack of research currently undertaken. I will now highlight my key concerns:

Scale
43% of the target new housing for Brentwood being allocated to West Horndon is far too excessive a figure despite the opportunities the village is deemed to bring. How on earth can the village be expected to bear this huge majority share of the borough's target new housing?. It is truly mindblowing, and again how do you expect residents to react? - and i f you were expecting such a response, I stress again you are knowingly showing a lack of respect to the people of West Horndon. A % figure this high should surely highlight to you that an unfair proportion is being allocated to West Horndon. People invested in their homes in this area due to the village's way of life. As my local council, I expected you to recognise and help me maintain this way of life. The changes you propose completely alter what was an easy decision to make West Horndon our home. Surely you can understand why such a huge project worries me? Especially one with such poor early research.

Top Down nature of this proposal.
As already mentioned, I am disappointed at the level of engagement with the residents in the early stages of such a huge proposed change to our way of life. I refer to the Localism Act here, which highlights the natural reaction and resentment that such actions bring.

Metropolitan Green Belt
I believe all Green Belt should remain so, show me a genuine person that doesn't. I would like to see the targeted Industrial Estates become housing, this part of the project I agree to be positive for both the existing village and the new settlements, but a more reasonable number of houses should be considered and debated with residents.

Sustainable Location
Due to the evident inadequacies that West Horndon has for such growth, there needs to be far better researched feedback to residents to enable people to make their own informed decisions on whether the area can remain providing services and a lifestyle that residents are currently used to. I have no confidence whatsoever currently that the village can be considered a sustainable location following such a dramatic change. This is critical, and from what I see currently, there is a huge amount of work to do to convince residents that sustainability is achievable.

The "Village" and its setting
Why do people choose to live in West Horndon? Why do people move to West Homdon? The answer is because it provides a countryside village enviromnent in a great borough that provides beautiful views, wildlife in abundance, a certain type of home for a certain type of individual/family, ft's not for everybody, but it has qualities that appeal to certain people. The small population and open space are some of these qualfties, and provide for the "village" status.

People
invest their life's savings here when they make this place their home, and they invest based on a typically quieter environment than the average town. Your proposed plan carries a huge risk to this investment, and i f one was to consider this in pure purchasing terms as some kind of "contract', would it be fair to say that what one has purchased has changed so much as to be something that the purchaser did not intend to purchase at the outset of the contract? Would West Horndon remain a village?

Roads
Traffic increase is a concern. The A127 is appalling at rush hour. The abolishment of the Industrial Estate provides for less HGV's, but the growth in smaller family cars will be huge. The roads are currently inadequate for this projected growth, and there is no sight of a convincing plan or strategy for the accommodation of this increased traffic.

Flood Risk
This risk is one close to my heart and a sensitive subject. Our home, and four of our neighbours were flooded throughout on Christmas Day 2012. The past year has been the most difficult of my
life, restoring our home, and endeavoring to maintain everyday life in the process. We lost our
next-door neighbour, a dear old lady, moved into temporary accommodation, shortly after the event. This change in lifestyle, albeit temporary, clearly had too great an impact, but I hope demonstrates the impact a dramatic change in lifestyle can have for some people. Sorry to paint this sad picture, but its fact, and I do so you can understand the significance of this flood event. A not so merry Christmas, a holy flood maybe? Our home was flooded in every room, the entire house is currently still being restored, room by room. I remind you that I am a resident in Brentwood. I have heard nothing whatsoever from Brentwood Council, which is fine, we've coped and I'm not sure to what extent you would get involved in such an event, so can only assume there seems no interest in this catastrophe, yet at the same time I am faced with the prospect of a repeat event. I put it to you that unless I consider some significant changes to my landscape, I will remain exposed to the peril of flood despite the ditch at the back of my property, which clearly is inadequate to withstand flooding.

That's obvious, its happened once, and the landscape remains unchanged. I ask you do you really
understand the risk imposed by flood in this village, and if so, why did my property flood?

Additionally, can you please explain why the new housing will not be exposed to flood, and
additionally whether similar precautionary work can be carried out on my own property.

Summary
I hope that I have managed to get across the concerns my family have with this project, and hope
that my criticisms will be viewed constructively, and that we accept that some housing would be positive, certainly in place of the current industrial area. I have been as honest as possible with my response, and hope that our reaction to this proposal can be understood to be a natural one, and one based on very real risks and concerns.

My family and I totally respect the need for the provision of housing for a growing population, but West Horndon is completely misunderstood in this proposal, with a short-sighted emphasis really based in my view on a station which happens to have lots of open land around it. There is extremely poor research and non-existent planning currently into the needs of the area to respond to such a significant change, and this added to the ignorance of people's reasons for choice of investment here, making the village their home, leaves me currently very disappointed for the first time since my arrival in Brentwood from London 10 years ago. Brentwood is a truly great borough, and we should all be proud of it. West Horndon is a great village, and we are proud to call it our home, and we truly hope it can remain so for the future.

General Development Concerns
The only definite thing about Policy CP4 "West Horndon Opportunity Area" is a proposal for 1500 houses. The plans provide no further details other than outlines of the 3 target areas - sites 020, 021, and 037.

Policy DM28 "Gypsy and Traveller Provision" West Horndon mentions a Travellers' Site at West Horndon but no indication as to where.

In these circumstances it is difficult to make specific comments on such a major proposal. For these reasons and the reasons below I am rejecting both Policies CP4 and DM28.

Infrastructure
The plan has no infrastructure change details. Just a general statement to the effect that necessary infrastructure changes can be made.

The existing infrastructure serving West Horndon is insufficient at this present time to cope with the existing village needs. It is difficult to see how the extra development can be supported when the major infrastructure changes that are required have not been established first. Specifics of the changes to be made, and the how, when, and where, and individual organisations responsible for providing those changes need to be presented alongside the projections of things like 50 houses per year in the rollout plan in order to assess how the figure of 1500 houses was arrived at and how such expansion can be supported.

Unless there is a legal obligation to provide the infrastructure before or during the build then all that will happen is 50 houses per year will be built and nothing will be done until something breaks - if then. This has been my experience in this and other areas.

It is unclear as to why West Horndon is considered to be the target for such large development with its known infrastructure problems such as flooding, drainage, sewerage, road/rail capacity etc., yet areas in the north of the borough with those same issues are not. The statement that necessary infrastructure changes can be made could equally apply to those areas north of the borough as well as West Horndon.

Scale of the Proposed Expansion
West Horndon is currently a small rural village of low density development surrounded by open spaces. In the core of the village there are around 500 houses, with more in outlying areas, making it a well sought after location.

Adding 1500 homes to the village core would nearly quadruple its size, and treble the size of the parish. It would effectively turn West Horndon into a town, destroying its rural setting and character, eroding the community spirit and significantly reducing house prices as the reasons for West Horndon being a sought after location would no longer exist.

Green Belt
A large proportion of the 1500 houses are proposed to be built on site 037, which is Green Belt land, indeed Metropolitan Green Belt land. National planning policy indicates that such land should be permanently open, and housing development is considered an inappropriate use for such land except in exceptional circumstances. The Brentwood Borough Local Plan does not detail what the exceptional circumstances are to justify releasing Metropolitan Green Belt land.
If those houses get built on such land, developers will have a powerful case to build more homes on adjacent green belt land once the precedent is set. Once this starts to happen, the boundaries of West Horndon will be forgotten and its periphery will become a sprawl of housing out of all proportion to the village centre.

The Brentwood Borough Local Plan not only seems to conflict with National Planning Policy on Green Belt retention but actively seems to encourage more than just this "one-off" release of Green Belt with the inclusion of the statement on the first page of Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area which begins "West Horndon could give rise to further capacity..."

Mixed Use Development
Policy CP4 mentions the mixed use of the land for housing, employment, retail, community, open space, education and health purposes in various different sections of the policy. It also mentions encouraging local employment to reduce travel, particularly by car.

However, the closure of most of the industrial units in the brownfield sites of 020 and 021 on the plan to make way for the homes, and the relocation of the businesses to the former M25 works site 010A, will slash local employment opportunities within walking distance of the village and create the need for additional traffic (even if the "Green route", whatever that is supposed to be, does ever materialise) as there is no rail link to site 010A and the site is definitely not within walking distance of the village.

There is no mention in the plan for any other uses of the land in sites 020, 021, and 037, except for housing.

Gypsy and Traveller Provision
The initial estimated 14 traveller pitches is out of proportion to the much smaller allocations elsewhere. West Horndon would be taking nearly half of the total pitch requirements.

No indication has been given as to where the 14 pitches are to be located. As National Planning Policy states that the use of Green Belt for traveller/gipsy sites is classes as inappropriate development, that leaves just the brownfield sites of 020 and 021.

A rail link in the form of West Horndon station has been one of the reasons given for attracting potential development. But in the case of travellers and gypsies this is irrelevant due to the nature of the people and their work.

Nearby access to facilities such as primary schools and secondary schools is another requirement for such a site. West Horndon has a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has very few shops, even less that are actually open, a primary school which is at full capacity now and no secondary school.

Healthcare is another requirement. The limited hours of opening and service provided by the surgery in the village cannot meet the needs of the existing residents now.

The village is remote from the larger centres of Brentwood, Basildon and Upminster.

Such a site would harm the character and appearance of the village and result in an unacceptable visual impact. House prices in the area would plummet. The events of Dale Farm have proved how a supposed limit of a legal number of pitches can mushroom out of control. Even today on Oak Farm, the remaining legal part of the Dale Farm settlement, a large number of travellers are cluttering up the area far in excess of the legal permitted maximum and have been doing so since the Dale Farm eviction.

Given the above, the travellers with their larger than average families, could soon start overwhelming such a small rural village as West Horndon.

The above points illustrate why West Horndon is not a suitable location for a travellers' site.

See attachments

The plan provides no details to support the allocation, other than outlines of the 3 target areas - sites 020, 021, and 037 plus an unidentified Travellers' Site.

There is no infrastructure delivery plan.
For these reasons and the reasons below I am objecting to Policies CP4 and DM28 of the proposed Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015 - 2030.

Flooding
The village has been flooded several times and further development would make this worse.

The core village of West Horndon is in a dip. The Environment Agency web site shows much of it as liable to flood from the south. To the north of the village the ground goes upwards, allowing water to naturally flow downhill towards the village from that direction too. The fields between the A127 and the village act as a soakaway for that downhill flow of water and rainwater collected from the A127. Building on these fields will greatly increase the flood risk by allowing the natural water to flow onwards towards the existing core village.

The land the core village sits in is flat. There is no natural outward flow for incoming water. Its natural flow is to the lowest point - which is the village.
The village has been flooded 3 times since I have lived here. Twice, in 1957 and 1981, when the number of dwellings was smaller than at present. Every time significant extra housing was added to the village, no action was taken to improve the drainage and sewerage. Only after each flood did any action get taken to make improvements. The village was again flooded in 2012.

The Brentwood Borough Local Plan has ignored this glaringly important issue of West Horndon's liability to flood.

Transport Links
Paragraph 3.7 in the "Justification" section of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015 - 2013 Preferred Options document states "having good road and rail access, local shops, and community facilities West Horndon offers potential for sustainable development..."

The "rail access" refers to a rail link in the form of a station and "road access" is the links in the form of the A127 and A128.

But the rail link is already at full capacity. Extra coaches cannot be added to the trains as the station platform cannot accommodate any more than the 12 coaches used at present. The number of trains already on the line during the peak travel times leaves little room for the addition of any extra trains. The London bound trains are already full when they pull into the station.

The station car park is full as it is, and during weekdays commuters park wherever they can in the adjacent roads.

West Horndon is on the Fenchurch Street line which, unlike the Liverpool Street line, ends on the periphery of the centre of London with no onward rail links from there and has limited interconnections along the route.

Therefore the fact that West Horndon has a station cannot be viewed in the same way as Brentwood and Shenfield stations, which are on the Liverpool Street line making many destinations easily reachable and will have plenty of extra capacity nearby in the form of Crossrail.

The A127 is already clogged with traffic. It is almost impossible to join it during the peak travel times now due to the heavy traffic. The London direction is nearly always at a standstill. The Southend direction is only marginally better. The addition of a few further hundred homes near the Dunton junction of the A127, for which planning permission has already been obtained, will bring the road to even more of a standstill than at present.

The addition of 1500 homes at West Horndon would simply cause gridlock unless extra lanes were added along the route and realistically this isn't going to happen due to the prohibitive cost.

The A128 is not a lot better. The current levels of traffic are already close to breaking point. Driving to Brentwood and beyond is a stop-start process nearly all the way and trying to turn right from West Horndon to go the other way is impossible due to the volume of traffic even at today's rush hour levels. It is impossible to see how this road could be widened or supplemented by a new road in either direction. On the A128 towards Brentwood the current levels of traffic are already close to breaking point. The addition of 1500 homes at West Horndon would simply cause the traffic to back up across the Halfway House flyover roundabout and down the A128 creating more issues for vehicles wishing to join the A127.

The bus service is almost non-existent for whatever the chosen destination.
Therefore none of the transport options can be considered sustainable.
Other Facilities

Paragraph 3.7 in the "Justification" section of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015 - 2013 Preferred Options document states "having good road and rail access, local shops, and community facilities West Horndon offers potential for sustainable development..."

West Horndon needs better medical facilities even at present. The West Horndon surgery only provides the most basic of facilities during the limited weekday hours the surgery is open. For example, there is no GP at the surgery on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Trying to get a GP's appointment on the same day is not always possible even when ringing the moment the surgery opens. Sometimes there is a wait of 3 days or more.

West Horndon has very few shops that are open in the form of a cafe, two small convenience shops, and hairdressers. The other few shops in the area have been closed for many years.

A significant amount of trade for the small convenience shops and the cafe is associated with the Horndon Industrial Park (site 021) in the form of workers from the site and drivers of vehicles heading to and from the site. The proposal to relocate most of the industrial units from this site could severely impact these shops and lead to one or more of their closures.

West Horndon has a primary school, which is at full capacity now. It has no secondary school. Even if children were fortunate enough to get into the local primary school, they have to travel to a secondary school outside the area.

Traffic Through the Village
Due to the lack of any specific plans I assume the exit point for vehicles from the proposed development areas into the village will be the existing entrance to the site 021, labelled the Horndon Industrial Estate, Station Road on the plan.
This is already a dangerous junction as the road to West Horndon station is opposite which makes it effectively a crossroad junction. It is particularly dangerous for drivers of vehicles trying to turn right out of West Horndon station. This is because traffic coming down the bridge to the left and traffic from the right is obscured from view due to the location of the junction and the driver therefore has to quickly move his or her head to the extreme left and right and also take into account traffic from directly opposite before pulling out.

The extra vehicles that would be coming from directly opposite if the proposed development went ahead would greatly increase the risk of accidents.

Leading on from the above, assuming a conservative average of 2 cars per home, then 1500 extra homes would mean an extra 3,000 cars pulling out of the aforementioned junction and mostly travelling through the village to join the A128 and A127. There is no way these routes can support the extra traffic.

We agree with the option of converting the West Horndon Industrial Estate to housing, but not using Green Belt land for housing. The government has recently clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify loss of Green Belt land.

From our recent experience dealing with Brentwood planning department and local councilors, we have little faith that the best interests of West Horndon residents will be the most important criteria when you make your recommendations/proposals on the Local Plan 2015 - 2030. Comments submitted for your consideration.

I have read the Local Plan 2015 - 2030: Preferred Options for Consultation with interest and while I can understand the overall rationale I must object to the proposed development at West Horndon. There are many reasons why the village of West Horndon objects. I will focus on the following:

Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
Policy DM1: General Development Criteria
Policy DM5: Employment Development Criteria

Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area
Justification 3.7 states that West Horndon has "good road and rail access". Whilst true it does have a train station the train line, operated by c2c, runs from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness. It does not stop, nor pass through, any other stations in Brentwood Borough and peak trains run once every 20 minutes c2c has no plans to increase the frequency of the trains.

In order to gain rail access to the other Brentwood Borough stations travellers would have to either: travel to Upminster, change to the Greater Anglia line to Romford and change trains again to catch a train towards Brentwood; or, travel to Southend and change train lines to come back towards London.

Whilst West Horndon does provide good access to the City, the "good rail access" will not improve access to the Borough, nor help to keep jobs within the borough as those travelling by train are much less likely to live within the borough unless they live within West Horndon itself.

Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
I commend you for seeking to reduce travel, congestion and pollution, but I fail to see how you will achieve this. The reduction in travel is linked to providing jobs in West Horndon, but these are likely to be in retail, with some small offices. Given that your own research to date shows that a higher than average percentage of Brentwood borough residents commute to central London, I would like to understand how retail and small offices will keep jobs local. What plans are in place to encourage those who would occupy the 1500 new homes in prime commuter belt to work locally? Without these details I can not assess the full impact so have to object.

Justification 3.57 seeks to reduce car travel, partly by introducing a Green Travel Route (3.59) to link Brentwood with West Horndon and the Enterprise park. The journey from Brentwood to West Horndon on the proposed Green Travel Route is 5.5 miles and currently would take c. 20 minutes at peak times, not including the additional time a bus requires to pick up and set down passengers. The journey from West Horndon to Brentwood would be 6.5 miles and take 27 minutes, again without accounting for the additional time required. I have to question again why those moving to the new home in the borough would make this journey to get to work when they could:

a. Commute to any of the other major employment centres on their train line (c2c/Greater Anglia). West Horndon to Basildon takes 8 minutes; Brentwood to Shenfield takes 6 minutes. Passengers can even get to Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street in 30 and 38 minutes respectively.
b. Drive, taking short-cuts and not stopping at each bus stop, reducing their journey time and providing greater flexibility throughout the day.

At present, because I assume the transport assessment is still forthcoming, the frequency and practicality of such a service has not been determined. Nor has the cost of a ticket per journey/season tickets. Similarly, improved walking and cycling routes have not yet been defined. I would point out that to the average commuter, walking or cycling 5.5 - 6.5 miles to get to work would be considered too far and be too time consuming.

The bus journey on the proposed Green Travel Route has to utilise the A127. The road is already at capacity and arguably over capacity during peak times with a build up of traffic back past the Junction with the A128. Without understanding how the additional traffic, firstly from demolishing the industrial estate and building the new development, then from the occupants and business of the new development in West Horndon, would be accommodated on the A127 I can not asses if it is practical so can not support the plan.

Policy DM1: General Development Criteria
The policy states that the development should "have no adverse affect on the visual amenity, the character or appearance of the surrounding area". While you do acknowledge in Justification 4.3 that new dwellings should not look out of place, the addition of 1500 homes plus the other (mixed) development will treble the size of the village changing dramatically the character or 'feel' of the village. I, and many other residents of West Horndon, chose the village because we wished to live in a small, close-knit, community. Trebling the size of the village will remove this, it will no longer be the type of place in which I chose to live. In addition, there is a risk, given the location of the development, that a 'them and us' culture could develop. Without understanding how this will be sensitively managed I can not support the development.

Policy DM5: Employment Development Criteria
I can not agree that trebling the size of the village will mean that the development complies with point a. "be of a scale and nature appropriate to the locality". Point d requires vehicular access to avoid residential streets and county lanes. I have to question how this will be achieved. Current access to the site is via the main road in West Horndon which is a residential street. The development is planned over 15 years, this would be many, many years of disruption for the residents.

I am aware that there are many more objections to the proposed West Horndon development, including the flood risk as the village has flooded twice in the past three years. There is also concern that a secondary school has not been proposed, this would require further transport to be provided to enable children aged between 11 - 16 to attend a school, potentially in a neighbouring borough.

While I do support the development of brown-field sites I can not support the development of green-field sites. Moving the current West Horndon industrial park to a new location with vastly improved road access makes good sense, as does developing the current Industrial site to accommodate new housing and a small mix of other amenities. The current infrastructure is also significantly more likely to be able to cope with a smaller scale development.

I would like to understand how the neighbouring boroughs have been consulted about the plans. As West Horndon is on the very edge of Brentwood borough, any increases to population will impact both Havering and Thurrock. What impact is this expected to have on them and are they able to cope with the proposals?

In conclusion, I can not support the development plans as they stand for West Horndon as I do not believe the village or the infrastructure can support them. I also question the time and cost required to make improvements to the infrastructure if the plans were to go ahead as shown. How would the drastic improvements be funded?

I would be happy to discuss my comments and look forward to the Community Master Planning exercise.

I have read the Local Plan 2015 - 2030: Preferred Options for Consultation with interest and while I can understand the overall rationale I must object to the proposed development at West Horndon. There are many reasons why the village of West Horndon objects. I will focus on the following:

Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
Policy DM1: General Development Criteria
Policy DM5: Employment Development Criteria

Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area
Justification 3.7 states that West Horndon has "good road and rail access". Whilst true it does have a train station the train line, operated by c2c, runs from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness. It does not stop, nor pass through, any other stations in Brentwood Borough and peak trains run once every 20 minutes c2c has no plans to increase the frequency of the trains.

In order to gain rail access to the other Brentwood Borough stations travellers would have to either: travel to Upminster, change to the Greater Anglia line to Romford and change trains again to catch a train towards Brentwood; or, travel to Southend and change train lines to come back towards London.

Whilst West Horndon does provide good access to the City, the "good rail access" will not improve access to the Borough, nor help to keep jobs within the borough as those travelling by train are much less likely to live within the borough unless they live within West Horndon itself.

Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
I commend you for seeking to reduce travel, congestion and pollution, but I fail to see how you will achieve this. The reduction in travel is linked to providing jobs in West Horndon, but these are likely to be in retail, with some small offices. Given that your own research to date shows that a higher than average percentage of Brentwood borough residents commute to central London, I would like to understand how retail and small offices will keep jobs local. What plans are in place to encourage those who would occupy the 1500 new homes in prime commuter belt to work locally? Without these details I can not assess the full impact so have to object.

Justification 3.57 seeks to reduce car travel, partly by introducing a Green Travel Route (3.59) to link Brentwood with West Horndon and the Enterprise park. The journey from Brentwood to West Horndon on the proposed Green Travel Route is 5.5 miles and currently would take c. 20 minutes at peak times, not including the additional time a bus requires to pick up and set down passengers. The journey from West Horndon to Brentwood would be 6.5 miles and take 27 minutes, again without accounting for the additional time required. I have to question again why those moving to the new home in the borough would make this journey to get to work when they could:

a. Commute to any of the other major employment centres on their train line (c2c/Greater Anglia). West Horndon to Basildon takes 8 minutes; Brentwood to Shenfield takes 6 minutes. Passengers can even get to Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street in 30 and 38 minutes respectively.
b. Drive, taking short-cuts and not stopping at each bus stop, reducing their journey time and providing greater flexibility throughout the day.

At present, because I assume the transport assessment is still forthcoming, the frequency and practicality of such a service has not been determined. Nor has the cost of a ticket per journey/season tickets. Similarly, improved walking and cycling routes have not yet been defined. I would point out that to the average commuter, walking or cycling 5.5 - 6.5 miles to get to work would be considered too far and be too time consuming.

The bus journey on the proposed Green Travel Route has to utilise the A127. The road is already at capacity and arguably over capacity during peak times with a build up of traffic back past the Junction with the A128. Without understanding how the additional traffic, firstly from demolishing the industrial estate and building the new development, then from the occupants and business of the new development in West Horndon, would be accommodated on the A127 I can not asses if it is practical so can not support the plan.

Policy DM1: General Development Criteria
The policy states that the development should "have no adverse affect on the visual amenity, the character or appearance of the surrounding area". While you do acknowledge in Justification 4.3 that new dwellings should not look out of place, the addition of 1500 homes plus the other (mixed) development will treble the size of the village changing dramatically the character or 'feel' of the village. I, and many other residents of West Horndon, chose the village because we wished to live in a small, close-knit, community. Trebling the size of the village will remove this, it will no longer be the type of place in which I chose to live. In addition, there is a risk, given the location of the development, that a 'them and us' culture could develop. Without understanding how this will be sensitively managed I can not support the development.

Policy DM5: Employment Development Criteria
I can not agree that trebling the size of the village will mean that the development complies with point a. "be of a scale and nature appropriate to the locality". Point d requires vehicular access to avoid residential streets and county lanes. I have to question how this will be achieved. Current access to the site is via the main road in West Horndon which is a residential street. The development is planned over 15 years, this would be many, many years of disruption for the residents.

I am aware that there are many more objections to the proposed West Horndon development, including the flood risk as the village has flooded twice in the past three years. There is also concern that a secondary school has not been proposed, this would require further transport to be provided to enable children aged between 11 - 16 to attend a school, potentially in a neighbouring borough.

While I do support the development of brown-field sites I can not support the development of green-field sites. Moving the current West Horndon industrial park to a new location with vastly improved road access makes good sense, as does developing the current Industrial site to accommodate new housing and a small mix of other amenities. The current infrastructure is also significantly more likely to be able to cope with a smaller scale development.

I would like to understand how the neighbouring boroughs have been consulted about the plans. As West Horndon is on the very edge of Brentwood borough, any increases to population will impact both Havering and Thurrock. What impact is this expected to have on them and are they able to cope with the proposals?

In conclusion, I can not support the development plans as they stand for West Horndon as I do not believe the village or the infrastructure can support them. I also question the time and cost required to make improvements to the infrastructure if the plans were to go ahead as shown. How would the drastic improvements be funded?

I would be happy to discuss my comments and look forward to the Community Master Planning exercise.

See attached

See attached

See attachment

My initial comment is that the draft Local Development Plan (LDP) along with its supporting documentation does not constitute a proper consultation because of the lack of evidence that is included. In the main consultation document the evidence section for the CP4 policy the justification just contains a statement that an infrastructure and modelling plans would be forthcoming. This does not support or represent a justification in my view. Also there are other clear planning issues which seem to have been totally ignored. The most obvious of these is the flood risk. To have ignored flood risk is clearly a serious omission, given that West Horndon has been subject to serious flooding on at least three occasions in the last 50 odd years. It is also highlighted with areas at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency flood maps.

Thus all my comments are caveated by the statement that detailed robust evidence must be obtained before any plan can be considered as valid. The council needs to obtain, by whatever means necessary appropriate assessment of the impacts of the plan, make these public and then re-consult in order to meet its statutory obligations.

1. Infrastructure Considerations
Before any development takes place it is necessary to demonstrate the appropriate infrastructure can be provided either prior to the development or at the very least concurrently. While it is probably safe to assume that utilities like water, sewerage, gas, electricity and telecommunications can be expanded or upgraded some others such schooling, doctors will need more consideration. More major infrastructure such as transport need even more careful assessment as these could prove to be breaking points to the plan e.g. the current railway line is operating at more or less full capacity during the peak morning and evening commuting rush. Matters get even worse west of Upminster. Would the railway system realistically be able to increase capacity? We have a statutory obligation not to permit development that creates problems in surrounding areas. Thus an uninformed decision to significantly increase housing units in West Horndon could be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) by means of the rail travel problems. A similar situation exists for the road network. Although West Horndon is close to major road like the A127, A128 etc. these roads are demonstrably already at or beyond capacity. Unless it can be demonstrated that there are practicable upgrade possibilities further development in the West Horndon area would not be sustainable.

Thus I suggest that a formal infrastructure needs and feasibility assessment is undertaken. I would suggest that this is done as a series of scenario assessments examining the impacts and implications for a different number of housing units expansion. It would then be possible to come to an informed decision from the infrastructure perspective about how many new housing units could be sustainably added to the current community.

2. Development in Area 037

The current LDP identifies an area of land to the north of the current industrial estate plots for the provision of 1000 new units. I am totally opposed to this proposal. The main grounds for this are:

i. This land is currently Green Belt. The NPPF clearly states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt land is to prevent urban sprawl1. It also states that development on or modification to Green Belts should only be undertake in very special circumstances2 and that harm to the greenbelt must be clearly outweighed by other considerations. The consultation document does not provide any justification let alone one that clearly outweighs the harm.
ii. On the green belt issue I also observe that by permitting development on the 037 plot it just invites further development to the north, south and also to the west and north west. This is exactly the type of development sprawl that the NPPF explicitly wishes to prevent.

iii. Flood risk. This land currently becomes saturated following heavy rain. It acts as a water storage area and in effect is part of the flood management of the wider area. Any development in this land, even if the best Sustainable Urban Drainage systems (SUDS) were used, would significantly reduce the storage capacity this land currently provides. This would increase the risk of flooding both to the development itself but also to surrounding areas. The surrounding areas are already prone to flooding. There have been 3 major flooding incidents in West Horndon since 1958, the most recent being in December 2012. Climate change will only potentially make this worse. The NPPF states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk....."3 building on an area of land that acts as a water buffer is totally contrary to this policy especially as it is an area that is according to the Environment Agency already subject to fluvial flood risk.

[see attachment for maps]

While it would in theory be possible to construct flood alleviation infrastructure that would in effect speed the progress of the water under the railway line into another area that is also flood prone. Fluvial flooding is a significant risk to the wider area.

The NPPF clearly states "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided"4 it further states that "where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." and "Local Plans should be supported by Strategic Flood Risk Assessment".

The proposal to develop the land 037 does not meet any of these criteria or policies set out in the NPPF and thus I reject it out of hand.
3. Redevelopment of the Industrial Estate Areas 020 & 021
I would broadly support this part of the proposed plan. The industrial estates are currently in a rundown condition and to continue as an industrial area would need major redevelopment. One of the owners of the land has clearly stated at the public Road Show they did not consider this to be a commercial viable investment.
Redeveloping this area to mixed residential and light industrial (not activities that would promote heavy lorry traffic) use would have number of significant advantages:

i. It would materially contribute to the need to provide new housing in Brentwood.
ii. Extra housing would provide justification for upgrade and/or renewal of facilities and infrastructure in the area.
iii. Assuming proper SUDs were used throughout the overall level of flood risk could be reduced.
iv. Heavy lorry traffic through the residential areas of the village should be significantly reduced or eliminated.

The draft LDP which is being consulted on suggests a nominal 500 housing unit for this area. Without further analysis it is difficult to comment on the sustainability of this number. However I observe that it would more or less double the size of the village. In return for accepting such a disproportionately large portion of the overall increase required for Brentwood I think it would be necessary to improve some key parts of the infrastructure such as providing a new doctors/medical centre, improved roads to cope with the extra traffic.

I suggest that the mixed residential area should include mainly family homes (3 & 4 bedroom houses) along with some starter homes as well as residential homes and sheltered accommodation for the elderly. Clearly other bits of infrastructure like the school, recreation areas, would need to be developed to match demand created by the increasing numbers.

There are still questions about the wider critical infrastructure like rail and road transport but if these could be suitably managed then this area would seem to be appropriate for further development. Any expanded development must be limited by the capacity of critical infrastructure to be developed to match any increased demand.

4. Possible Alternative Site
I recognise that the fact that the 037 site is unsustainable that leaves a need to find a location for approximately 1000 homes in order to meet the requirements of the strategic allocation. The Hutton Industrial Estate has not been considered in the consultation document. To have been considered but rejected for a legitimate planning reason I could comprehend but I fail to understand why it has not even been considered. It is a brown field site and I understand is also in need modernisation should it be going to continue as an industrial area. I urge that it is fully evaluated for sustainability as a further mixed residential and light industrial area. It might be suitable for more housing developments and thus be able to take some of the housing that Brentwood needs to find.
In conclusion I am firmly of the opinion that the current version of Local Development Plan has serious flaws. It needs to be modified significantly to ensure that green belt land is preserved and flood risk minimised. Redevelopment of the West Horndon industrial estate is potentially a good idea provided there are not unmanageable infrastructure problems. However, it will only be possible to judge this when proper assessments have been carried out. To progress without the necessary assessment is a significant risk to the Borough as it could result in the adopted plan being undeliverable.

See attached

See attached

see attachment

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE ANY NEW HOMES BEING BUILT IN WEST HORNDON, ESPECIALLY ON THE STATION ROAD GREEN BELT!!!!

I object to the proposal of building 1500 dwellings in West Horndon.

1. We are a small village of around 750 houses. I chose to move to W.Horndon 25 years ago because of its size and location away from heavy pollution and chaos of a town. The scale of the proposed development will completely obliterate the charm of the village.

2. Apart from the above reasons, I see from the plans that a large part of the allocation is within the Green Belt. This is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which declares that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

3. West Horndon is a small settlement surrounded by open countryside. A large variety of wildlife is seen in and around the village. A construction of 1500 houses on the edge of the village will destroy its open setting and rural character.

4. During the past 25 years of living in West Horndon, we have had to contend with the heavy traffic of lorries from the Industrial estate plus the speeding cars coming from St. Mary's Lane using the only main road of the village as a short cut to the A128. All requests to redress this problem have been in vain.

5. Road and junctions are inadequate to cope with the traffic that 1500 dwellings would cause. All cars requiring to use the A127 towards Southend can only do so by crossing the village and turning left at the A128 T-Junction. The A128 traffic is already heavy at present and a long queue of cars has to wait for an opportunity to turn either sides. This is exacerbated when the A127 roundabout is reached by the volume of cars.

6. Flood Risk. The village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. The Council has not been seen to have carried out any assessment of drainage in the area. It is incomprehensible that the Council would want to aggravate the situation by building 1500 houses without first dealing with the problem in the first place.

7. West Horndon is a small village with a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has only a tiny shop selling main requisitions such as newspapers, milk, cigarettes and included the Post Office. The Doctors' surgery is barely coping with the present patients with a three-day wait for an appointment. The present Primary School is operating at full capacity now and there is no secondary school. There is an infrequent bus service. The railway station providing a commuter route into/out of London consist of only two platforms and has limited additional capacity. It does not support travel within the Borough. The residents of the new development will have no choice but to make most journeys by car (already dealt with in point 5 above).

Following the above points made against the proposed Draft Plan to erect 1500 dwellings in West Horndon, I accept that with the passing of time new houses need to be built in the Borough. However the 43% increase allocated to West Horndon is completely disproportionate and suggests that this is urgently reviewed. The acceptable number of new houses to be built would be at the very most 150 houses which will have to be in keeping with the present West Horndon character.

I bought a property in the village 11 months ago, had I known that you were intending on turning a village in to a town I would have moved else where.

I am deeply upset and saddened with the proposal as a whole with regard to new homes, and a traveller site. I've never lived in a village before and its wonderful. I was looking forward to starting a family here, however he thought of all the new homes is quite distressing, its not what we envisioned!!

Having researched other villages where the same has been done, it seems that the council were quick to put up the houses but epically failed with regard to local services needed to accommodate the extra homes, ie, doctors, schools, extra train services to London.

Having said all of that if we really have no choice whatsoever then I would like to say that given the choice of sites for these new homes, I would as a compromise support a few over the industrial site as it is unsightly and would stop the lorrys going through the village. I would not however support any kind of building on the fields entering the village at the Station Road end which is absolutely beautiful!!

I object to the proposed 1500 houses to be build in and around West Horndon. Not only does that constitute 43% of the total number for the borough. It would also treble the number of houses within West Horndon and therefore change the community with increased traffic in and out of the area.

My other point is the area is green belt and we already are high risk of flooding. Therefore, building on this land makes no sense and will be damaging to existing residents.

I object to the development due to the proposed high number to be build on green belt land.

The village has flooded in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012. The environment agency website shows West Horndon to be at the risk of flooding.

This can only increase the risk in the future, when building on green belt.

See attached

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed development of West Horndon.

Myself and my family have lived in West Horndon for over 15 years and move to the village specifically because of it quiet, idyllic and peaceful location. West Horndon has a "small village" feel and the proposals will simply destroy that atmosphere and result in yet another dysfunctional town being created.

Having reviewed the proposals, I believe that you have not taken due care and consideration before reaching this stage of the process. Specifically:

- Complete lack of proper assessment: National guidelines states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of the infrastructure, water supply, wastewater, energy, telecommunications, utilities, waste management, social waste, education and flood risk. This has clearly not been carried out by the Local Authority.

- Flood Risk - West Horndon has suffered from flodding in 1958, 1981 and as recently as 2012. The proposed development on land extending to some 25 hectares has been proposed without and assessment of drainage in the area - in fact the Environment Agency's own web site shows West Horndon as being at risk of flood, so I am flabbergasted that you have not carried out a formal review in relation to this matter.

- Involvement of the Local Community - Myself and my family feel completely excluded from the consulation process to date. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that local authorities should involve all sections of the community; this has clearly been a top-down process only, where the needs and input of the local community have been completely ignored.

- Green Belt - We have, over the past decade, witnessed many areas of natural beauty and green belt being destroyed in the UK. This appears to be yet another step to destroy local green belt, as the larger part of the proposed development is within a defined green belt area.

- Local Infrastructure Assessment - It is clear that there has been a complete lack of assessment of the impact the proposed development would have on local infrastructure. The local community will clearly bear the brunt of the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

In summary, I do not believe the local authority has given due care and attention to this proposal before publishing its findings. I would strongly recommend that you, in consultation with local community, carry out a study of West Horndon, focusing on its infrastructure, service amenities and public transport needs, before taking the matter any further.

Finally, I will be taking these matters up with out local Member of Parliament and seeking independent legal advice on the process you have adopted to date. I believe you have looked to fast-track your decision and have not followed the agreed national process and guidelines, something I am extremely disappointed with.

see attached

AGREE TO DEVOLPMENTS IN THESE AREAS BELOW

Area 126 - East of West Horndon, South of Station Road to A128 (Note that this area was also set for development in the 1950's with plans for residential and roads) This could result in approximately 100 properties
Area 038 - East of Thorndon Ave, North of Station Road. (This area had development plans for residential and roads in the 1950's) This could result in approximately 100 properties
Area 048 - Elliots at junction of A127 and A128 including South towards Station Road (Area 038) This could result in approximately 500 properties
Area - East of A128 towards Laindon including Timmermans Garden Centre (who wants to move) and South towards Dunton Hills Golf Course. This could result in approximately 200 properties


AGAINST DEVELOPENT IN THESE AREAS BELOW
Area 020 & 021 - West Horndon Industrial Park and Childerditch Industrial Park (Wolsey Site) consists of small Industrial units. However TNT & other companies who use Station Road for their 40 ton lorries should be encouraged to move to Brentwood Enterprise Park at Junction 28 of the M25, South of the A127
Some employers should be allowed to stay because if the sites were to be ONLY residential, this would remove employment opportunities within the local West Horndon area.

Area 037 - Nutty's Farm (Green Belt) 1000 residential properties. Why not 500, why not 5000. The area concerned is farmland so ANY NUMBER OF RESIDENCES COULD BE BUILT. This area goes against a policy on Page 46/7 as follows: This development will cause MAJOR changes.

The general extent of the Green Belt across the Borough will be retained subject to minor allocations. The following settlements are excluded from the Green Belt as identified on the Policies Map:

Blackmore, Brentwood, Doddinghurst, Herongate, Hook End, Ingatestone, Ingrave, Kelvedon Hatch, Mountnessing, Stondon Massey, West Horndon and Wyatts Green.

SECTION on Page 145 - 14 Gypsy and Traveller Sites are to be located in West Horndon area. This contravenes all parts below:-

a. The site does not give rise to unacceptable harm to the Green Belt - It will affect the Green Belt!
b. The site is well related to existing communities and accessible to local services and facilities, such as shops, primary and secondary schools, healthcare and public transport - Wrong! The West Horndon School is full & has a waiting list. The Doctor at present cannot give enough appointments. Public transport buses to Brentwood is a joke. Access to A127 & A128 at peak times is terrible and cause major delays almost every day
c. The site is serviced by a suitable access road - Where is this access road? Why not build a new access road from A127 to West Horndon Industrial Park to alleviate the heavy lorries. Because it is too expensive!
d. The location would not result in unacceptable living conditions for its occupants - Wrong!
e. The proposed accommodation would not harm the character and/or appearance of the area and/or result in unacceptable visual impact - Wrong!
f. The site is located, designed and landscaped to minimise any impact on the environment - Wrong!!

I conducted a survey 6 years ago with the travellers when they were adjacent to South Essex Golf Course just North of the A127 and East of A128. They did not want to be in West Horndon! Also a major clear up expense occurred after they were evicted. So much for NO UNACCEPTABLE CONDITIONS.

FLOODING - Page 164 of the Report is unacceptable because:-
4.160 Brentwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA, 2010) maps flood risk zones in the Borough, with surface water flooding shown most notably on the A12 North West of Brentwood and on roads around Ingatestone. Incidences of fluvial (river) flooding are recorded along the eastern boundary of the River Wid and from Stondon Hall Brook and the River Roding to the North of the Borough. Areas at risk of fluvial flooding in the Borough are mainly rural, and include low lying areas south of the A127 west and east of West Horndon

Development of the areas 037, 038, 048 and 126 in the Report MUST be flood plain areas at present in view of the 3 major floodings that have occurred over the years. What proposals are there to deal with this problem?

Lastly, there is a proposed bus route along Thorndon Avenue out onto the A127 to the new Brentwood Enterprise Park at Junction 28 of the M25, South of the A127 and to the Codham Hall Industrial Park.

A BUS COULD NOT PULL OUT ONTO THE A127 AT ANYTIME OF DAY! IT WOULD BE DANGEROUS ESPECIALLY IN RUSH HOURS. I presume nobody actually looked at this scheme to aid the move of the West Horndon Industrial Park.

Overall there are some areas that are good for residential homes but flood schemes must be done before the development takes place

Alternative areas should be considered for Major developments include Shenfield (because of Cross Rail) and all the advantages that this super rail link would bring. Also house prices in this area would probably increase if the correct type of residences was built. Also Ingatestone and Mountnessing have good opportunities for residential housing.

- What infrastructure is in place with regards to roads, services, transport, schools etc. before the build begins
- Within the 1500 homes how many will be 1,2,3 bedrooms.? Depending on this answer how do you intend to accommodate these people?
- How do you plan to stop the village from flooding, by removing the green belt which helps with drainage, what are you going to put in place?
- With 1500 homes will bring minimum of 1500 cars possible leading to over 3000, the A127 London bound of a morning is always nose to tail and in the evening Southend bound what do you plan to do about this?
- The Doctors in the village is under pressure as it is, it will never be able to cope with additional 1500 or 250. Same goes for the playschool, primary school, and how do plan to coach the secondary school children into Brentwood?
- West Horndon is a village and this is why we moved here, once you bring in this amount of properties we will then become a town and we don't won't this
- There is a lot of people that work on the industrial estate that rely on the trains to get to work, how do you plan to get these people from the station to the M25?

see attachment

1. Large scale development.
West Horndon currently has approximately 750 homes, this proposal will effectively treble the size of the village. It would therefore no longer be a village and its character and ethos will be lost and changed totally. We have chosen to live in West Horndon because of the type of village it is and this large scale development will completely ruin that and possibly reduce the value of the existing properties in the process.

The proposal to build a large estate behind existing properties will block views residents currently have and their outlook will just be over houses. There will consequently be a loss of large expanse of countryside and also we will lose the wide variety of wildlife that are currently seen in and around the village. We feel that no consideration has been given to wildlife issues.

We are being asked to comment on these proposals when there are no details for us to comment on, only boundaries and location of the proposed site and the number of homes it might contain.

2. Distribution of new homes throughout the Borough.
Looking at the distribution of the new homes for the Brentwood area it is obvious that the distribution is extremely unfair. Why are there so many new homes proposed for the south of the borough? There is no justification for such a large proportion of the allocation to be built at West Horndon. There must be other suitable areas e.g homes could be built on the Hutton industrial estate if that was moved as it is proposed to move the West Horndon industrial site. The Hutton site is near many facilities that are far better than the existing facilities in West Horndon e.g.shops, bus links and, Shenfield station with far more frequent trains.

3. Traffic problems.
The proposal is for 1500 new homes. Given that in general there are 1 or 2 vehicles per home this will mean an extra 2,000 vehicles going into and out of West Horndon. This will result in a higher volume of traffic going along Station Road and Thorndon Avenue. This will result in more traffic noise and pollution along both roads. It will also lead to queues of traffic trying to get onto the A127 and the A128 especially during the rush hour. The queues on the A128 may also cause problems on the flyover over the A127 causing further congestion. There is already a problem with speeding along Station Road and Thorndon Avenue and this will undoubtedly increase with all the extra vehicles. The council have not shown any evidence of plans to improve the roads to cope with the extra traffic.

4. Property values.
New properties that have been built in West Horndon in the last few years have taken a long time to be sold why do the council think that this will change? Especially as it is also proposed to have a 14 Traveller sites in or near to West Horndon. The reality is that if prospective buyers are considering a new property in West Horndon then as soon as they hear of the traveller proposal they will buy elsewhere. It is a fact that a Traveller site will reduce the value of properties in that area - as evidenced in Crays Hill where Basildon council has put properties in Crays Hill in a lower council tax band.

5.Medical facilities.
We cannot always get a doctors appointment on the same day now with 750 homes, how long will we have to wait if the planned development goes ahead? The Health Authority have no plans to increase our medical facilities if this development goes ahead.

6. Public transport.
Extra people will mean more commuters on the trains. c2c currently have no plans to increase the frequency of the trains or to increase the number of coaches during rush hour. The trains are already very crowded at rush hour so extra people will make the situation intolerable. Rail travel from West Horndon does not cater for journeys within the borough the stations either side of West Horndon are in different boroughs.

The bus service is very infrequent and does not run in the evenings. The lack of public transport to other parts of the borough mean that residents of West Horndon will have to rely on their own transport - thus creating extra traffic day and night. There are not many people that would be able to cycle all the way to Brentwood - even if a "Green route" is developed.

The Brentwood Local Plan justification for siting so many new homes at West Horndon is that it has "good road and rail access". This only applies for the current size of the village. If it is tripled in size then the road and rail access is inadequate and major investment would be need in both to bring them up to the standard required to provide an adequate service.

7. Loss of Green Belt.
The planned development is mainly on metropolitan green belt. This was originally set up by the government to expressly stop urban sprawl and keep land permanently open. As per the National Planning Policy Framework that states "exceptional circumstances must exist to justify loss of green belt" the government have recently stated that housing demand is unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances.

8. Risk of flooding.
The planned development is on a flood plain - how can homes be built on such an area? Some residents have already been turned down by insurance companies because of the flooding only as recent as last Christmas. The village has been flooded in 1958, 1981 and 2012. There is no evidence that the council have carried out any assessment of drainage in the area. Even the Environment Agency's website shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk if flooding. There are already problems with drainage, sewage how can extra homes be built without major improvements?

9. Local school.
The school is at full capacity. There will be no spaces at the local school for all the extra children.

10. Hospital facilities.
With so many new homes proposed in West Horndon and locally in Thurrock, Basildon hospital will not be able to cope with all the extra demands that will be placed on it. This will mean that people will have to travel further afield for treatment and other hospitals such as Queen's are struggling to cope with existing numbers of people that require treatment.


11. Crime.
Obviously with an increase in population, comes with it an increase in the crime rate, something which at the moment is low as per many VILLAGES. Also with the current economic climate it would be most unlikely that police resources could cope.

12. The Borough Council is expecting people to comment on a sketchy, poorly researched plan. It should therefore carry out a study of West Horndon focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport. Only after this has been done can it be said that the plan is responding to the needs of the local community. The local community has had little input into the plan. This is against the government guidelines of " Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and business is essential".

I'm writing in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Development Plan, in specific section CP4 which identifies West Horndon for an increase of 1500 homes. West Horndon is small Village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself and the Ward has no more than 701 homes altogether. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and 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 and this cannot be ignored.

I have to ask why West Horndon has been singled out for 'significant and future growth'? The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the Local Development Plan objectives as a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station and a platform which has been extended however 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, which means no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use.

We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen the A128 and any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only increase the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. We have an extremely poor bus service, which means residents often don't leave the village or have to wait hours for the next bus to return to the village. 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.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctor's appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything to indicate what will happen to our current health service and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? The doctor's surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increased number of homes suggested for West Horndon. With many elderly members in the village who rely upon these services there are serious concerns that many people's health will be put at risk. 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 unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, 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 it. The current access to the A127 from Thorndon Avenue is extremely dangerous and requires a 90 degree angle turn into Thorndon Avenue from the A127. Trying to join the A127 from Thorndon Avenue require dangerous increases of speed and a very small slip road. Many people take the corner too fast and don't anticipate other drivers approaching up from Thorndon Avenue. With 1500 homes being built in the village there will most certainly be an increase in accidents.

Living on the west side of Thorndon Avenue I am very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. These fields area act as a soak for waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which floods when we have heavy rain. 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 National Planning Policy Framework makes it very clear that no development should in anyway have a negative impact upon any neighbouring areas. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. We learned when surveys were completed on our house that 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 west of our property in excess of 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents. Having recently moved to this area in August 2013 we found our previous Buildings Insurance provider could not cover us because of the risk of flooding and have found it very difficult to get buildings insurance. We would be very concerned about the risk of more flooding in this area with the suggested 1000 homes west of Thorndon Avenue. I'm sure many of those new builds will find it difficult to get buildings and contents insurance because of the villages previous flood history. There is no evidence that Brentwood Borough Council have 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 very significant and it does seem extremely unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and apparently no other! We have to ask why Ingateston has not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon. Why is it that Ingateston have only received 130 homes and that's it! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that this lose be shared equally across the borough and not simply from one area; West of Thorndon Avenue. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land and recent clarifications from Government have made it clear that housing demand is an unlikely justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I have not found a single resident who was in anyway fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LPD statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback. What guarantees do we have that this 'master planning' will happen and that developers will not simply do as they wish and build lots and lots of houses to make money? Who will be responsible for conducting this change and who can we as residents call out to ensure that promises are being met?

See attached.