brentwood.gov.uk

I wish to object to Honeypot Lane (site reference 022 - the 'Site') being included in the draft local plan on the basis that it is 'unsound'. This is for the six reasons outlined below.

1. No exceptional circumstances have been established to warrant removing the Site from the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Site is important Green Belt land which should be protected. The very inclusion of this Site is inconsistent with planning guidance and government policies on the protection of Green Belts. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes it very clear that a Green Belt boundary may be altered only in 'exceptional circumstances'. Moreover, recent guidance (6 March 2014) states that: 'Unmet housing need (including traveller Sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development on a Site within the Green Belt.' The Government's position on Green Belt policy, therefore, is very clear. The fundamental aim remains to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Boundaries of Green Belts should only be changed in "exceptional circumstances", and unmet housing need is not an exceptional circumstance to justify taking land out of the Green Belt.

2. Insufficient social infrastructure. There is an insufficient amount of schools and medical facilities around the Site to support 200 extra homes plus a care home:

(a) Existing local schools already struggle to support the number of children living in the area. St Peter's Primary School in South Weald, for instance (which is the local school closest to the proposed Site), is oversubscribed. In addition, it should be pointed out that there is no safe pedestrian access to that school, thereby posing a safety risk for school children and other local residents. In addition, there is on average, a 12 month waiting list for nursery schools in Brentwood, illustrating once again the educational infrastructure overload in the area

(b) As for medical facilities, it is already very hard to obtain same-day appointments (even if you're in a bad way) and we often have to rely on a walk-in centre located in another Borough Council (Romford) to see to our urgent needs. We are also made to wait an average of six weeks to two months for a non-urgent GP appointment.

The creation of 200 extra homes and a care home (which would, by its nature, create a high demand for medical services) would add an excessive amount of pressure on local schools and medical facilities. The fact that that there are no schools or doctors' surgeries within an easy walking distance of the Site (ie less than 30 minutes) would also further exacerbate the traffic problems mentioned below.

3. Insufficient road infrastructure to support the inclusion of the Site as outlined. The creation of 200 houses and a care home would increase significantly the amount of traffic in the local roads surrounding the Site. This would result in an estimated 400 additional cars, together with other vehicles, including HGVs, to service the development. As things stand, some of the local roads are very narrow (eg Selwood Road) and cannot possibly accommodate two-way traffic, especially with the high number of cars parked on these local roads. In fact, in circumstances where cars are parked on both sides of the road, there is barely room enough for a passing car to go through. The additional traffic would also have a negative impact on:

(a) the T-junctions at both ends of Honeypot Lane (especially as at least one of these junctions (the junction with Hill Road) has a blind spot as you come from Hill Road and turn right onto Honeypot Lane), and

(b) Honeypot Lane itself which narrows down to one lane in one segment of the road

The additional traffic would therefore increase safety risks for local roads to an unacceptable level. Moreover, it would further exacerbate the severe congestion problems on London Road which, at peak times, has long tail-backs, making it difficult to access London Road from adjacent roads.

4. Pollution and loss of rural character. The issue of air quality must also be taken seriously. Air pollution levels in this area, which borders the A12 and is in close proximity to the M25, are already high. Additional traffic would worsen the situation, affecting the health of all current and future residents. Moreover, it is important for the local area to retain its green sites, so as to retain some rural character. The creation of 200 extra homes would lead to a loss of rural character, with heavy plant chaos for the duration of the build (five to ten years) and, once the build is completed, houses in close proximity to each other with overlooked back gardens. I am very concerned about the impact it will have on the environment.

5. Flood risk. As noted in the draft local plan, there is a watercourse which runs through the middle of the Site. Pieces of land adjacent to the Site (eg Hive Close and gardens which back onto the Site) have already encountered flooding and drainage problems. Building on the Site would exacerbate such problems for the local area.

6. The Site was rejected in the past because it did not meet the Council's Spatial Strategy. Nothing has changed since that rejection, ie the reasons for that rejection stand. It is therefore hard to understand why the Site has now been included in the draft local plan.

For the reasons mentioned above, I believe the inclusion of the Site in the draft local plan is deeply flawed.
Please take my concerns into account.

Yours faithfully,

Helen Andrews