Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 18477
Received: 10/03/2018
Respondent: Ms Beryl Joyce Clark
These sites are greenfield protected urban space and should remain as such. Despite the reduction in density, these sites are not suitable for the amount of homes proposed. There is very limited access and air pollution - which is already high - would become worse. Congestion and traffic volumes would increase. The road is narrow and unsuitable for additional traffic. There seems little detail on infrastructure such as drainage and sewage in the area, which is inadequate. There would be increased pressure on doctors and schools. Site has previously been determined too wet for development.
Re Sites 044/178: The document states that there has been a review of representations (Page 3 para. 5), but it is my understanding that there has been no detailed or formal response to representations made by the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association since March 2016. Nor is there any evidence in the draft Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account. Sustainability and technical evidence submitted has not been analysed and given consideration. Although there are references to previous consultation exercises (Page 4 para. 7), there is not an up-to-date document detailing the representations made in 2016, other than a reference to the number of responses made. The document refers to protecting the Green Belt and only building on brown field land (Page 4, para. 9). However, sites 044/178 in Priests Lane are greenfield protected urban space sites and attracted a high number of objections but these sites are not mentioned. Why is this? There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites (Page 6, para. 14). The site assessment appears weak with no evidence of robustness or balance. The original plan was for the development of 135 homes and this has now been reduced to 95. However, the site is still unsuitable for this number of homes. There is very limited access and air pollution - which is already high - would become worse. It would most probably generate another 150/200 cars trying to use Priests Lane increasing congestion which is already considerable at times. This would be in addition to a likely increase in traffic due to developments in central Brentwood and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is very narrow and walking down it would become even more difficult with an increase in the number of cars using it. It is necessary to cross the road (more than once) to reach the pavement which itself is very narrow. There seems little detail on infrastructure such as drainage and sewage in the area. This can already be a problem - there are frequently temporary traffic lights in Priests Lane due to one utility company or other having to undertake repairs. There would of course be increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and schools. It can already be difficult to get an appointment with a doctor; although the plan acknowledges this it is difficult to predict the actual need and is likely to be under estimated. When this land was previously considered for development the proposals were rejected as objections raised were considered reasonable. What has changed? I understand that site 044 was considered too wet for development and to develop the land now would undoubtedly affect the water table. I believe that many residents in Priests Lane already suffer flooding in their gardens. What steps are being proposed to prevent this problem becoming worse? Page 7, para. 18D refers to enhancing green infrastructure networks and improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. It is difficult to see how this objective will be helped by developing a protected greenfield site.