brentwood.gov.uk

Having read the Local Plan, it was disappointing to see the Honeypot Lane site 022 included in the plans. I assume it is due to the comments from Barwood Land and Estates Ltd, together with their agents Chilmark Consulting, who in their responses to the 2013 consultation implied that Brentwood Council was failing to plan to deliver Brentwood's full objectively assessed housing needs.

You have already acknowledged receipt of my previous email of 4th March highlighting specific inaccuracies in the AECOM Sustainability Report regarding this site. There are other reasons why I believe this site 022 is unsuitable for development which are as follows:

ACCESS

All roads which would be used to access the site either have chicanes, Weald Road, Sandpit Lane and Wigley Bush Lane, or have parts of the road which are too narrow for two vehicles to pass, Weald Park Way. Honeypot Lane has its own specific restriction. All this would hinder construction traffic to begin with, and would substantially increase local traffic once the site had been completed. The roads currently take high volumes of traffic, especially mornings, evenings and school run times, which has increased substantially with the St Charles development. Regrettably, due to no enforcement Honeypot Lane is a speeding "rat run" and I would not be surprised if at some stage there was a serious pedestrian injury, especially in the construction period, at the Honeypot Lane narrowing. There is no commentary as to how these access issues would be resolved. Clements Park, which is a similar sized development, has three access points at Crescent Road, Warley Hill and Mascalls Lane which allows traffic to disperse relatively efficiently.


FLOODING/DRAINAGE

At the road show for this consultation, one of the exhibits highlighted this issue in the BT fields and Selwood Road area. The Environment Agency website also shows a high risk of flooding arising from surface water. There is a meaningful water course that runs diagonally through the whole site. Although it is not possible to access site 022, it is lower than the lowest BT fields opposite which are completely waterlogged. I would suggest any development would create increased flooding exposure to the properties east of the site. It would also probably provide additional flood insurance issues, not only for the development but also those other properties which are near the existing water courses.


EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS

St. Peter's school in Wigley Bush Lane is the nearest primary school and is currently oversubscribed. This has recently been refused planning permission to expand due to it being within the Green Belt. There is a substantial shortage of primary places in the Brentwood district, and clearly no room for expansion at St. Peter's. I understand Holly Trees school, which would be the next nearest is also over subscribed and I'm unaware of where there would be additional primary provision. As there are no schools within walking distance of site 022, contrary to the AECOM Sustainability Appraisal, (see my previous email 4th March) that would imply up to four traffic movements per day per pupil. I refer you back to my comments under ACCESS.

HEALTH FACILITIES

Again, contrary to the AECOM report, (see 4th March email) there are no medical facilities within 800m which forms part of Dept of Transport guidance to those facilities which would be deemed a walkable distance. Again, I understand the NHS have intimated there is a shortage of facilities in the Brentwood area, and I'm not aware of additional health facilities being planned.

BRENTWOOD STATION

The Draft LDP incorrectly states that Brentwood Station is within 15 minutes walk from anywhere on the site. As per my 4th March email as this was using "as the crow flies" measurements, it is clearly incorrect. From the nearest road access to site 022 using roads and paths it takes a minimum of 20 minutes. As I would suggest, many of the proposed new residents would be commuting via rail, and in view of the distance from Brentwood Station, this again would increase traffic volumes.

WILDLIFE

What a great disappointment it would be to lose this habitat which amongst many species is also used by badgers.

OTHER

Having reviewed the 2013 consultation responses, I see that the proposer for the Honeypot Lane site is Barwell Land and Estates Ltd. AECOM, who I assume are the successors to PBA who produced the 2013 Sustainability Appraisal, have produced the Sustainability Appraisal for Brentwood Council which has several inaccuracies (see 4th March email). In the previous consultation response by Barwell Land they highlight aspects such as public transport being easily accessible by foot, which is not necessarily the case. In reviewing the website of Barwell Land and Estates Ltd it seems that in other projects they are acting together with AECOM. Has this conflict of interest by AECOM been advised?