brentwood.gov.uk

1.To make this Plan sound, we suggest that any such green open space and buffer created within this development is made fully accessible for all user groups including equestrians.
2.To make this Plan sound, we suggest that the words 'fully accessible for all user groups as far as practicable' are included within this Policy.
3. To make this Plan sound, we suggest that point 7 incorporates 'multi-user routes' rather than cycle lanes throughout this development so as not to discriminate against equestrians. After all, this development should cater for both leisure and utility/commuting journeys.
4. To make this Plan sound, a dedicated multi-user crossing be created over the A127 and potentially Pegasus crossings on the two busy roads east and west of the site.
5. To make this Plan sound, we suggest that the Street Hierarchy caters for ALL users by default rather than enhancing routes which connect back to pedestrian routes; the aim should be a fully-connected multi-user network throughout the new development. Point c should therefore be reworded thus: '...enhancement and upgrading of public footpaths and other public rights of way (such as Nightingale Lane, an existing definitive Byway) and any bridleways throughout the GBI network, to coherently connect back to both residential pedestrian links and multi-user links; and...'

1.Policy RO1 3 points 2 and 6: again, our previous comments with regard to embedding full access principles within the spatial design policies apply.
2. Part 4 point 3 mentions pathways through the village, and we would prefer to see the words 'fully accessible for all user groups as far as practicable' included within this Policy.
3. Part 7 deals with sustainable travel, and our comments above apply also here. It is simply unacceptable to cater for only one user group - any dedicated off-road route should be multi-user and not limited only to cyclists. Equestrians should not be discriminated against.
4. Part 8 point 1: as mentioned above it is imperative that safe crossing points for all users over major roads are provided otherwise car use will continue, and any such crossing points must be accessible to ALL user groups, including equestrians.
5. Part 10 point 3: it is unacceptable to only consider enhancing the public rights of way network purely for pedestrians when a byway is in place which is accessible to ALL users. The NPPF contains an aspiration to enhance the public rights of way network and make it accessible to more users especially where they link with routes with higher rights, and where a major development such as this is being planned from a 'blank sheet' then the default for any off-road routes must be masterplanned to include all users.