To make this Plan sound, we suggest that this objective is reworded thus: '...enhanced and integrated back into the built environment through accessible multi-functional green and blue infrastructure'.

SO4: the aspiration for green infrastructure is welcome, but we feel that the principle of access for all within any such green spaces should be embedded within this Plan from the top down; therefore, the Strategic Objectives of the Plan should contain this principle.

To make this Plan sound, we suggest this policy point is reworded thus: 'accessible and multi-functional green and blue infrastructure...'

Policy BE01: we would prefer to see in point g reference to such infrastructure being publicly accessible whilst also being multi-functional.

To make this Plan fully inclusive and to not discriminate against any user group, and therefore sound, we suggest that the term 'multi-user route' is used rather than singling out pedestrians and cyclists. After all, a route that is accessible on horseback is also accessible to all other users - especially the disabled in wheelchairs/mobility scooters and parents with double buggies.

Policy BE13: we note that in point B that where appropriate, bridleway connections will also be considered; however, we feel that there is a need to ensure that ALL users are catered for rather than equestrians being added as a possible afterthought which is how this policy appears to be written. Whilst the aspiration of the Plan is to encourage sustainable transport and reduce peoples' dependence on the private car, if safe off-road routes are being provided then they should be open to all users - including equestrians. It costs no more to provide a multi-user route than a footway/cycleway and this Plan should provide for both utility/commuting journeys as well as recreational ones. This point is also relevant in paragraph 5.115 where the aim is to increase cycling - this is welcome, but it is important that the concept of multi-user routes is embedded within the Plan rather than routes specifically for one user group.

To make this Plan sound, we suggest that point b is reworded thus: '...maximise opportunities for the provision, restoration, enhancement, accessibility and connection...'

Policy BE18: point b sets out the requirements for any new development in relation to green and blue infrastructure and we suggest that it is also important for opportunities for access to such infrastructure to be incorporated into the Plan. Paragraph 5.148 rightly links the potential of GBI to contribute to the health and wellbeing of residents, but we are disappointed to note that only walking and cycling is acknowledged here. One should not forget that horse riding is an excellent form of exercise, most frequently enjoyed by women and children, two groups who are most often targeted to increase their exercise uptake. It therefore follows that safe, off-road routes for ALL users should be provided.

To make this Plan sound we suggest that a requirement to enhance existing open space and create new where possible and to ensure that as far as practicable this becomes accessible to all user groups.

Para 5.179 and Policy BE22: we note the requirement for access to open space, but we would prefer to see the aspiration to include more user groups within this open space both within the Policy and its reasoned justification.

To make this Plan sound, we suggest that this Policy contains an aspiration to link its open spaces by enhancing the public rights of way network and upgrading them to enable their use by more user groups eg cyclists and equestrians.

Para 5.184 mentions the need for connectivity between open areas of informal recreation via the rights of way network and this is of course welcomed; however, much of the good multi-user provision is fragmented and not connected, and Policy BE23 should contain an aspiration to enhance the links for all user groups to Brentwood's considerable amount of public open space.

To make this Plan sound, we suggest that point f is reworded thus: 'access, routes and connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians through and out from the development...'

Policy HP13: points e and f set out the requirement for new developments to be accessible, but they appear to only cater for pedestrians and cyclists, thereby discriminating against equestrians. As mentioned in our comments against BE13, any new off-road routes created should be multi-user routes by default thereby ensuring their accessibility by all vulnerable road users, instead of catering only for pedestrians and cyclists.

To make this Plan sound, we suggest that access for equestrians is incorporated into this policy and confirmed in the reasoned justification.

Policy HP18 and para 6.112: no mention has been made to ensure accessibility for all throughout new developments, and paragraph 6.112 mentions joining up landscape features and open spaces to 'create coherent linked landscape networks' but again, pedestrians and cyclists are the only user groups mentioned.

To make this Plan sound, we would like to see the aspiration to enhance accessibility to the Thames Chase Community Forest to include ALL user groups, including equestrians and cyclists.

Para 8.87 Green Belt Local Context: this paragraph acknowledges the benefits of the Thames Chase Community Forest and how it provides informal recreation, and we note that the Council intends to support and encourage this use. We would therefore like to see more clarity in this justification; where the aspiration to improve access is mentioned we would prefer to see this made accessible to more user groups than at present, specifically equestrians and cyclists as far as possible.

To make this Plan sound, we suggest that the strategic polices for DHGV incorporate multi-user paths suitable for ALL users as default, and to ensure connectivity for all vulnerable road users across the major roads/railway forming the site's boundary.

DH01b and f: we have already made reference within the main body of the Plan regarding the need to provide safe, off-road routes for ALL vulnerable road users - pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians and the disabled, rather than the walker/cyclists bias that this Plan states at the moment. After all, if you are creating one path why not make it fully inclusive - it costs no more and does not discriminate against one user group. We would also emphasise the need to ensure connectivity between the site and the surrounding areas especially across major transport arteries, for example the railway line and the A127, together with the existing busy roads bounding the site both east and west. If no connectivity is enabled, then getting people out of their cars will just not happen, and such links must be accessible for all user groups including equestrians.