Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22735

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Aspinall

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Council's consultation and decisions are inconsistent and not evidence based.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove Priests Lane from plan

Full text:

The evidence base is flawed:
The Transport Assessment is inaccurate as it has excluded traffic along Priests Lane, and was taken at a time which excluded a large proportion of school traffic, despite Council assurances that a traffic assessment would be done on Priests Lane.
The Transport Assessment does not account for the increased usage of Priests Lane from the proposed development of 1,000 houses in Shenfield travelling to the A127, nor does it account for the impact of the Elizabeth Line.
The plan fails to address safety of residents: the technical submissions of residents that new road accesses along Priests Lane and Bishop Walk are hazardous have not been addressed, nor concerns that the road designs are dangerous for increased traffic movements.
The site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions, notable access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
The Priests Lane sites have been rejected previously because the land was deemed a valuable open urban space.
No account has been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, the junction of which is a pollution hotspot.
The Lane was never meant to be a main distributary road which it has now become. Residents have pointed out that as such it does not comply with Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. This is the same with Bishop Walk.

NPPF Compliant: Local plans should address not only housing but also traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.
The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern, but no mitigation options have been identified.
No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.
When considered against reasonable alternatives these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for the enhancement of infrastructure as a result of development.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs, the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands and there is already a low level of GP's per head. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend, exacerbating the already dire traffic situation.