brentwood.gov.uk

Objection to the increase in the number of proposed houses and decrease in access points on the Priests Lane site for the following reasons:

• The site was initially intended to have 2 access points and it appears that although the number of houses has been increased the actual number of access points has been decreased to 1. This surely poses an even more substantial safety risk to those using Priests Lane. The proposed site access seems unsafe for a housing development of this size as it exits onto a lane that is already too winding, narrow and dangerous. There have already been several accidents in the vicinity of the site access. In addition, I understand that evidence has been provided that the road access does not meet current road design guidelines and has insufficient visibility splays. This needs to be revisited, especially as it is intended for there to be only 1 access point. The proposed access road and junction are poorly sited, with poor visibility, and, I understand, may not meet the recommended dimensions for safe road junction design. The lack of visibility at no. 61A will not be altered, and therefore I do not consider this junction viable as a safe exit from the site. In addition, Priests Lane is narrow at this point with private driveways immediately opposite and in close proximity to Glanthams Road, which would create an undesirable left-right staggered junction.
• Traffic often queues back from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane to beyond the proposed site access point. The increase in housing numbers would make this problem worse making travel at peak times intolerable and causing even more pollution.
• The LDP fails to take account of the increased usage of Priests Lane due to the significant proposed building in Shenfield. Most traffic from this development needing to access Brentwood and the A127 will utilise Priests Lane, putting further strain on the Lane itself and also the Junction with Middleton Hall Lane, a junction which, when using accurate data analysis would be shown to already be at full capacity.
• This is the only greenfield land identified for development within the LDP. Recently the Prime Minister has confirmed a major re-think on building, promising development would not be on green fields but would be constructed on brownfield sites. The plan contradicts this not only approving this land for development but, while it suggests that brownfield sites be developed before greenfield sites, the Council have no way to control this in practice. Indeed, the housing trajectory as outlined within the plan indicates that by the removal of its protection, the Priests Lane site is, in fact, targeted to be one of the first to be built upon despite brownfield sites being available. This means it is irretrievably lost, when in future it may be required to combat the expected increased pollution as a result of all the building within the area.
• Despite the overall increase in traffic there are no satisfactory mitigation proposals for Priests Lane as a whole and the addition of an extra road via which 75 households are to access the Lane poses significant health and safety issues for road users and residents alike. Due to the narrowness of the road, it can be difficult and dangerous to exit driveways in busy periods as turning out of driveways requires the road to be clear in both directions. This is particularly difficult for residents on the even-numbered side where visibility is poor and there are no pavements. The road is ill-designed to cope with large volumes of traffic as it is residential, winding and narrow, an increase in housing numbers is a cause for safety concern for pedestrians and drivers alike.
In summary, the increase in housing numbers will cause significant traffic issues for a road already at capacity at peak times and the proposed access point is likely to pose a significant safety risk to all who use the Lane.