Object
Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)
Representation ID: 22335
Received: 18/03/2019
Respondent: Miss katherine Webster
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Council has used flawed data and has not taken proper account of evidence provided to them by residents or indicated that his has received widespread objections. The Council should have regard to all evidence, internally and externally generated, and should either include it or explain and justify why it has been excluded.
The Plan should indicate the significant local opposition and either include the factual evidence supplied to them, or explain why it has been ignored.
The residents have provided a significant amount regarding the traffic safety risks and congestion in relation to the sites at Priests Lane as well as a technical analysis of the reasons why the new road accesses will be unsafe. In addition there was substantial opposition to this development including a 750 word petition. I can find no mention of this is the paper. The Council has failed to have regard to evidence supplied to them which conflict with the Plan. The Council assured the residents that they would look at traffic related to this site to consider the congestion risks, but this has not been performed. The only traffic analysis produced relates to junction performance. Priests Lane congestion is due to traffic queuing for junction 8, but this traffic has not been included in the analysis. If it was the junction would be one capacity. In addition, the latest traffic data used was taken in May versus November in previous counts. This falls during the school study leave period, and the road is greatly affected by school traffic. This would account for some of the variation, but no adjustment has been applied. I have other issues on the way the data has been used. As a result some of the traffic analysis evidence is based on inconsistent and flawed data. Further this data has been used for other junctions. The use of flawed data means that parts of the Plan are not based on sound evidence.