brentwood.gov.uk

I object specifically to the following:
Section 7
Paragraph 7.29 - Site Selection
Sites 044 & 178 - Land at Priests Lane, Brentwood

Reasons are as follows:

1. Safety of road users (paragraph 6.18)

The Priest Lane infrastructure is already under significant stress through volume of traffic and physically could not cope with the implied number of extra cars (residents plus visitors) using Priests Lane to access site 044 and 178. This is a congestion (Middleton Hall Lane but also Friars Avenue/Hutton Rd junction) and a safety issue. By way of example, due to the bends in the road I am already unable to exit my driveway safely (in a car or as a pedestrian on foot) due to the persistent streams of traffic and poor visibility. Many residents face this problem hence I see an increased risk of accidents were traffic volumes to increase.

2. Safety of pedestrians (paragraph 6.18)

Priest Lane is very narrow in places with provision of pavements on one side only. The need to cross the road multiple times when walking from Shenfield to Brentwood is a significant hazard. By way of example, we already feel extremely vulnerable when walking along the narrow sections where passing cars are no more than inches from pedestrians. In particular, the sharp bend by St Andrews Close is a key (and unsafe) crossing point where one pavement ends and one begins on opposite sides of the road. Extra traffic using this section of Priests Lane (and in particular St Andrews Close) will result in accidents with pedestrians and road users due to the road / pavement arrangement.

3. Provision of parking (paragraph 6.18 and 10.11)

The development on Priests Lane would not conform to policies 6.3 or 10.2 (paragraphs 6.18 and 10.11). Cars already park directly on Priests Lane, including by mounting the pavements in narrow places where only one pavement exists, particularly on the section of Priests Lane before Friars Avenue. This provides a significant impediment to the flow of traffic and is unsafe for pedestrians. My wife is currently pregnant and regularly has to walk in the middle of the road to circumnavigate these cars. This illustrates how parking is already insufficient and cannot cope with current residential overflow requirements.

4. Lack of public or sustainable transport options transport (council policy 7.3 and 10.1)

Priests Lane has no public transport. It's development would be directly at odds with paragraph 10.7 (and 10.6). It is clearly too narrow in places to become a bus route. It is also too narrow to support a cycle lane. It therefore clearly cannot support any development which approaches anywhere near the proposed 130 dwellings, as per the recommended density levels set out in Council Policy 7.3. This level of housing density is also not in keeping with the existing properties and density of the area.

Of particular note, given the lack of public transport options and walking distance of over 20 minutes to Shenfield or Brentwood railway stations, new residents would be encouraged to drive (or be driven) to transport hubs, particularly Shenfield station. The impact on congestion and safety at key rush hour periods would therefore be exponentially large.

5. Development of valuable open greenfield space

This is one of the last remaining open spaces and future generations should not be deprived of the flexibility to turn it over to alternative uses, such as for recreation or wildlife, and for the provision of a healthy environment. An unsustainably dense residential development is at odds with policies 9.1 and 9.2.