Land described as Fenland
(Meaning a low and marshy or
frequently flooded area of
land/covered by shallow water)
by Brentwood Borough Council
Liable to flooding
Basildon Borough Council
note the problems
The cost to overcome water/soil contamination
appears to mean this site is totally unviable,
but then the councils can give permission
without the necessary proper drainage and
water installation facilities works
to be carried out

AIR QUALITY (POLLUTION)—See also under separate heading – more information

Brentwood’s reports do not appear to up to contain up to date information on all their main roads: M25, A12, A128, A1023, A129 and A127 (in last 10 years in some areas no monitoring at all), so no comparison can be made and where they indicate is good can in fact be worse than all the other areas. Understand that comparative modelling can be done but is really no substitute for accurate equipment, reason being one area could have say 20,000 cars passing an hour but another with 8,000 in traffic jams could be worse. So when URS completed their report they appear to have been working on outdated or lack of information.

It can be seen that Pollution would increase with a population of 20,000+ (Essex Radio interview with Councillor Phil Baker, Brentwood Borough Council’s chair of the Planning and Development Control Committee. Then take extra
vehicles up to 12,000 and one can see this proposed development is NOT a GARDEN SUBURB but a NEW TOWN.
Brentwood will have so much land in the area they are extremely likely, taking into account their leader’s and planning chairman’s comments (Increasing population to over 30,000 with up to 18,000 vehicles).

Brentwood Borough Council because of the amount of land will own could increase the size of this NEW Town vastly. So instead of talking about 20,000+ people as they did on Essex Radio (with up to 12,000 cars)
you could be talking about POPULATION of 30,000+ (with 18,000 cars)!
Therefore, this is really a NEW TOWN being proposed, not a Garden Suburb. The infrastructure needed to cope will be
totally inadequate.

How can Basildon’s report by LUC state NO IMPACT on the following, taking into account the above: -

State Reduce local contribution to climate change – Obviously will be a serious negative effect – a population of 20,000+ and 8-12,000 cars.
State Reduce air, land and noise pollution – Obviously will be a serious negative effect – a population of 20,000+ and 8-12,000 cars.
State Reduce waste generation – 4,000 to 6,000 new homes – Obviously will be a serious negative effect, a population of 20,000+.
State Improve Water efficiency – additional demand would mean major works needed, potential water pollution and not advise how would improve water efficiency. Also surface water on areas of land at times now, so would need great investment.

Basildon’s NEGATIVES in the report by LUC: -

Flooding on parts of development possible, in fact probable, as confirmed in Brentwood’s report.
Potential water pollution, likely without massive investment before building.
• ***Potential significant negative effect on habitats and species within and close to it.***
Appears just like Dry Street ignore facts, as money to be made. Not building on PLOTLANDS but as nearby, could this adversely
affect this area?
Negative effect on Basildon Borough Heritage buildings and archaeological sites.
At present GREENFIELD site.

Report states Increase in Public Open Space though they consider this is only suggested when in fact a Great Loss of Green Belt. In Brentwood’s report states could lead to significant negative effects on the landscape. Also on ‘Soil and Contamination’ states ‘all options would lead to negative effects due to Green Belt land take.