brentwood.gov.uk

Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 044/178 - Priests Lane,
Brentwood, on the following grounds:
1. Last year Hogarth primary school not only had its car park but also its buildings
significantly extended onto its playing field. This serves to double the school's
pupil numbers at the expense of halving its playing field. The Priests Lane sites
are the only open land adjoining the two schools of Hogarth Primary and The
Endeavour. Developing these sites will involve the permanent loss of land last
used as playing fields and deny the schools the opportunity to not only replace
their lost playing field space but also to provide for future extension. Building on
these sites is contrary to the Government's priority on physical education to
address the obesity and mental health needs of our children and future
generations, thereby reducing the burden of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease and dementia in our community.
2. In addition to the need for local school playing fields, this site may offer
potential for meeting community playing field needs. The loss of this site would be
contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy
on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
3. Access for this development is suggested via Bishop Walk and yet, following
concern by the Highways Agency over 22 years ago during the planning
application, the number of houses in Bishop Walk was reduced from 8 to 5 on the
grounds of safety, even though traffic was less then. How can it now be justified,
with the increased traffic, to allow increase of not just three houses but ninety-five!
4. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level and added to by
the doubling of pupils to Hogarth Primary School. This will be exacerbated with
the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priests Lane with its single
narrow footpath limited to one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school
children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development
would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way
beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists
and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks.
Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the
area and is irresponsible. Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the
distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars.
5. Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood
and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127, A128 and
the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating
narrow footpaths and does not meet many national highway criteria nor
acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will
only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood
developments and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is not suited to serve any
increased traffic levels.
6. These sites only provide for the smallest proportion (1.15%) of homes in the
local plan and even then the high density of 95 dwellings on this site, as stated in
the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. This once
more will result in serious detriment to the area and should be accommodated
where it is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of
town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate
infrastructure, pedestrian/cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk
roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential
areas, such as Priests Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.
7. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the Anglia
Region, to which the addition of the London Crossrail Scheme is imminent. Such
land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise,
pollution and safety.
8. Access by emergency services would be further restricted by the added
congestion with concomitant effects on health, property and crime.
9. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this
development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area
cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the
neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.
10. Our concerns demonstrate how the LP proposal for Priests Lane is not only
unfeasible but contravenes Government and the Council's own standards as well
as those of Sport England and disregards the needs of neighbouring schools.
Despite this the Council has neither responded to our concerns nor those of the
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association and yet readily responded to
the land owner's comments requesting removal from the 2016 LDP of the
recommendation to keep part of the land open and available for community use.
This consultation process gives the impression of just following required planning
procedure without giving due consideration to official standards or residents'
concerns? Will our justified concerns continue to be ignored this time round?