brentwood.gov.uk

A different access site should be identified and/or a smaller number of houses. However, given the restricted location of the site, the only other alternative access point is on a road that has safety issues because it is located on a blind bend. If the access problems cannot be addressed, then the site should be excluded.

The reduction in house numbers from 75 to 45 addresses the concern about inappropriate house density. However, it does not answer the objection to new access road which will be poorly sited and potentially dangerous in design. Nor does it address the unsuitability of Bishop Walk, which was limited to 5 houses when built. The access points will still increase traffic risk because of the poor road infrastructure of Priests Lane and the already high traffic levels which will increase as a result of the various new housing developments in the area. It does not reflect the Council motion which implied that a further access point should be found.

I do not think that the Council gave proper consideration to the evidence provided by residents, and failed to look at traffic risk when evaluating the site despite promises to do so. They did not respond to our questions regarding the information provided to them. Moreover the Council was inconsistent in the decision making on sites for inclusion.

I think my existing objections are still valid and want them to be submitted along with the LDP, and continue to request a hearing.The I feel very strongly that the Council did not properly consider the information provided, and has failed to act with integrity with the evaluation of the sites.