None of this is possible without radical changes to access and parking.

The town centre is fine how it is - it does not need any changes. (Aside from the fact that the Co-op should return instead of that dreadful cheap shop there now)
However, although I don't like the idea of developing the Baytree centre and William Hunter Way carpark, both of which I use regularly, building here is much, much better than destroying precious green belt, forests etc Although, if you build on William Hunter Way carpark, where is everyone going to park for this trendy new town centre?? The car park is jam packed on a Saturday as it is!

I see no mention of how the following will be effectively embraced:
- Affordable housing for those on low income
- Appropriate independent accommodattion for those with a variety oif disabilities- not everyone lives in group homes
- Parking issues that will result by building a large number of flats in and around the town centre and on existing parking spaces
- How to revitalise the High Street - it is currently suffering from decay in quality shops - it is slowly turning into a haven of hairdressers, charity shops, and lower end chain restaurants. I see no attempt at upping the quality
- How will "Night Time Economy" will be radically improved - it is a steep hill to climb from drunken gangs to a safe environemtn for all the family. The High Street is regarded as a "no go" area at night
- The report has a great deal of hyperbole and wishful thinking- I see little hard evidence on some of the claims. Whenever claims are made garding a number of the above issues a "get out" clause is immediately given shaying why things will not happen.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed new housing development in Honeypot Lane. Having lived in Weald Close for over 20 years, I can say without any doubt that Honeypot Lane and Weald Road cannot take further traffic. This is totally unrealistic. Aside from this, it will spoil a little rural idyll which we are very fond of.

The Local Plan should recognise, protect and support community and cultural facilities and may need an additional policy to do so.

We welcome Strategic Objective SO11 and Policy 8.6 for Brentwood Town Centre, as these do support culture, however, there is not a clear policy to safeguard and support existing community and cultural facilities. The content of Policy 10.9 alludes to it, but has a focus on recreation. We therefore recommend a new policy is created, or Policy 8.6 or 10.9 are amended to also safeguard existing facilities.

The importance of planning for culture and cultural facilities is emphasised in the National Planning Policy Framework by being included as a core planning principle (Para 17). This is supported by guidance in para 70 of the NPPF which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community.

Paragraph 156 also states local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities in the Local Plan to deliver 'the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities'.

The Planning Practice Guidance notes that a range of issues could be considered through the plan-making and decision-making processes including social and cultural well-being. This takes the matter further than just access to doctors and playing fields. 'Well-being' is having a sense of satisfaction with life. Social and cultural well-being includes the un-measurable personal experiences that make us happy and content. Such experiences are intangible and can either be active (sports) or passive (theatre), and the provision of a variety of community infrastructure and cultural facilities for these activities is vital for their contribution to resident and visitor life satisfaction. Cultural and community opportunities also play a big role in developing, attracting and retaining skilled work force, and this should be promoted in this document.

It is therefore important the local plan safeguard cultural & community facilities which benefit and support sustainable communities which might otherwise be traded in for more commercially lucrative developments. Also to promote new facilities to support the growing population.

To support the objectives, we recommend a policy along the lines of:
Community and Cultural Facilities
The council will resist the loss or change of use of existing community and cultural facilities unless replacement facilities are provided on site or within the vicinity which meet the need of the local population, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision, and it has been demonstrated that there is no community need for the facility or demand for another community use on site.

For clarity, we recommend that the policy, text and the Glossary contains an explanation for the term 'community and cultural facilities'. We recommend this succinct all-inclusive description which would obviate the need to provide examples: community and cultural facilities provide for the health and wellbeing, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

I wish to convey my disappointment and objection to Brentwood Councils proposed retail / commercial development plans for William Hunter Way car park.
The planned proposal lacks any imagination or individualism and if pushed through will completely take away the heart of what Brentwood town centre has become synonymous for - different, appealing, valued, charming but above all habitual and charismatic.
The Borough Councils plan is bombastic and will just turn the town that is respected by residents of other neighbouring towns who when I talked to them will often say that they wish they could live somewhere like Brentwood, into another 'retail park' that will obviously benefit the revenue of the Council but will go against what most residents of Brentwood would prefer given a real choice.
While I am also concerned that it will further reduce a much needed car park that actually benefits the main High St. shops, this is an opportunity to create something with more vision and culturally more rewarding than simply creating more shops or worse still, a cinema complex. Why can't the Borough council create a contemporary library or centre for performing arts or a much needed theatre instead - this would far more befitting for both residents and non-residents of Brentwood. I urge you to re-consider your views and look beyond another Romford style shopping and night time cattle market.

I wish to convey my disappointment and objection to Brentwood Councils proposed retail / commercial development plans for William Hunter Way car park.
The planned proposal lacks any imagination or individualism and if pushed through will completely take away the heart of what Brentwood town centre has become synonymous for - different, appealing, valued, charming but above all habitual and charismatic.
The Borough Councils plan is bombastic and will just turn the town that is respected by residents of other neighbouring towns who when I talked to them will often say that they wish they could live somewhere like Brentwood, into another 'retail park' that will obviously benefit the revenue of the Council but will go against what most residents of Brentwood would prefer given a real choice.
While I am also concerned that it will further reduce a much needed car park that actually benefits the main High St. shops, this is an opportunity to create something with more vision and culturally more rewarding than simply creating more shops or worse still, a cinema complex. Why can't the Borough council create a contemporary library or centre for performing arts or a much needed theatre instead - this would far more befitting for both residents and non-residents of Brentwood. I urge you to re-consider your views and look beyond another Romford style shopping and night time cattle market.

Although I welcome the proposition of new, affordable housing, l am concerned with the concept of using the current central parking areas for development. Your plan is contradictory in that you aim to develop High Street retailing facilities through investment, but you do not evidence how you will attract consumers if there are no parking facilities. The park and walk scheme focuses on commuters, there appears to be no such facility for shoppers and consequentially the success of the High Street.

My other concern with a lack of parking facilities is the impact that this will have on the side roads, not only for residents, particularly as there is currently a paucity of 'policing' parking 'out of hours', but also the effects that inconsiderate parking has on road users leading to dangerous driving conditions and traffic congestion 'Hot Spots'.

Priests Lane and Honeypot Lane
Brentwood is too congested already. Priests Lane is a nightmare when the children go to school and come home. Honeypot Lane is also a cut through and so congested. There are not enough facilities - schools, doctors surgeries, etc to support even more people.
Surely any 'green' area should be protected.
The slightest incident on the M25 or A12 and Brentwood is gridlocked, so if you put more housed in = more traffic.
Brentwood High Street is dying unless you do something to support businesses that already exist it will get worse.
All this infilling is a blight on people's lives, people have to live with the constant disruption from builders etc.

These are my comments to the Draft Council Planning document.

* Use of Car Parks to develop

My main concern is that it would appear wherever there is a council owned car park, it is proposed to convert these into dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way.

Where are the current users of these car parks to park? There is nowhere near the centre of Brentwood for people to park. This reduces significantly the attraction for visitors and shoppers and workers.

The Brentwood Council car park should also be included in these plans. If you are to build on most car parks, why not build on the main council car park too.

* Use of existing empty shop units

There are a number of empty shopping units in Brentwood. I counted over 20 empty and there is a very high percentage of empty units in the BayTree centre.
These units should be considered first before building new units to supply the niche shopping towards the vision.

* Cycle Paths

Brentwood still does not have a dedicated cycle route or markings along the main route towards London. If you are to encourage cycling and reduce the vehicle road use, you need to have purpose built paths and markings.
There are road markings and dedicated cycle paths from the M25 into central London. The paths/markings stop abruptly at the M25 towards Brentwood.

* Westbury Road Car Park and St Charles Napier Pub Land

I note that there are dwellings planned for Westbury Road car park. The surrounding Victorian houses have been affected by flooding in the past. This needs to be considered when building new properties.
What is to happen to the land where the St Charles Napier Pub once stood. This is unsightly and needs developing.

* Cinema

The best place to build a cinema complex for Brentwood is at the Brentwood Leisure Centre. There is already ample parking there. This would avoid building at the William Hunter Way car park. So the town centre would avoid the vehicle traffic from cinema goers.

These are my comments to the Draft Council Planning document.

* Use of Car Parks to develop

My main concern is that it would appear wherever there is a council owned car park, it is proposed to convert these into dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way.

Where are the current users of these car parks to park? There is nowhere near the centre of Brentwood for people to park. This reduces significantly the attraction for visitors and shoppers and workers.

The Brentwood Council car park should also be included in these plans. If you are to build on most car parks, why not build on the main council car park too.

* Use of existing empty shop units

There are a number of empty shopping units in Brentwood. I counted over 20 empty and there is a very high percentage of empty units in the BayTree centre.
These units should be considered first before building new units to supply the niche shopping towards the vision.

* Cycle Paths

Brentwood still does not have a dedicated cycle route or markings along the main route towards London. If you are to encourage cycling and reduce the vehicle road use, you need to have purpose built paths and markings.
There are road markings and dedicated cycle paths from the M25 into central London. The paths/markings stop abruptly at the M25 towards Brentwood.

* Westbury Road Car Park and St Charles Napier Pub Land

I note that there are dwellings planned for Westbury Road car park. The surrounding Victorian houses have been affected by flooding in the past. This needs to be considered when building new properties.
What is to happen to the land where the St Charles Napier Pub once stood. This is unsightly and needs developing.

* Cinema

The best place to build a cinema complex for Brentwood is at the Brentwood Leisure Centre. There is already ample parking there. This would avoid building at the William Hunter Way car park. So the town centre would avoid the vehicle traffic from cinema goers.

I have read the Local Plan with interest. I am concerned that some of the proposals for additional housing are inappropriate and they will contribute further to the terrible traffic congestion at peak times and other issues that we face in the Brentwood and Shenfield areas.

Over-development of the area will destroy the quality of life that existing residents enjoy. Any encroachment on existing Green Belt land should be prohibited.

The night-time entertainment facilities in Brentwood are already adequate and further development of them should not be encouraged otherwise they will lead to further social issues, damage to the reputation of the town and destroy the attractive character of the town centre and surrounding areas.

Extra housing will bring extra traffic and there is no attempt in the Plan to address this increasing problem. Brentwood already comes close to total gridlock on occasions and building so many new properties will simply increase the problems.

The main roads in the area covered by the Plan are the A12 and the A127. Both are woefully inadequate for the demands being placed on them already and further development of housing or employment infrastructure (such as the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe and the London Gateway terminal) unleash huge numbers of trucks on to our local reads every day. The stretches of the A12 and the A127 that run through the area should be widened to 3 or 4 lanes in either direction and be upgraded to motorway standard with hard shoulders along their entire length for safety and to help avoid traffic delays in the event of a breakdown or accident.

The Plan mentions the need for housing suited for older and disabled residents yet Brentwood Council allows the existing stock of suitable homes to be depleted - I am referring to the ongoing demolition of bungalows in Shenfield and their inevitable replacement by huge 'executive homes'. Just because it is possible to demolish an existing property and squeeze on a much bigger one does not mean it should be done. Demolition of sound properties simply to make a quick buck for the developer is a very un-green practice and one the Council should strongly discourage. It is going to be impossible for older residents to stay in this area if this practice is allowed to continue.

The proposal to develop a huge number of houses on Officers Meadow in Shenfield (site refs 034,087 & 235) will not only destroy a valuable piece of Green belt land but will inevitably lead to more traffic joining the jams that already clog up the roads in to Brentwood at peak times and will reinforce the existing overlaod on the A12 Brentwood by-pass. This is a very large development and is out of all proportion to the surrounding area.

The proposal to build houses and other facilities off Priests Lane (site refs 044 & 178) will destroy a valuable piece of open land and will add to the terrible traffic jams that currently clog Priests Lane at peak periods. Priests Lane is too narrow for the amount of traffic that already uses it and the narrow pavement along only one side makes it very dangerous for pedestrians who walk along it in fear of being mown down by passing traffic attempting to negotiate its narrow carriageway.

The plan to build Dunton Hills Garden Village is going to destroy one of the atrractive corners of the borough. It is an enormous housing estate development and calling it a 'village' cannot disguise that.

Whilst the Crossrail development is to be welcomed I wonder how much capacity it will ad because there will be no additional tracks laid towards London and I suspect that some existing services may end up being cancelled to make capacity for the Crossrail trains on the already congested lines. Increasing goods trains as a result of the London Gateway and other ports around the Essex coast mean further risk of delays and disruption to passenger services.

What we really need is the development of new rail routes - connecting from Shenfield directly to Stansted (not via Liverpool Street) and across the Thames to Gatwick as these would do a lot to reduce congestion and stimulate development in the outer London area. This is in addition to the proposed additional road development and tunnels across the Thames at Tilbury linking the A2 to the M25.

I believe that my proposals would result in a more sustainable set of developments. I hope these comments will be noted and the Plan will be reconsidered.

1. It would appear that the Council has allocated a number of its Car parks, as land suitable for building dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way. This creates two problems:
a) In fill like this does not provide an attractive environment - either for the new residents or existing residents.
b) There does not seem to be clear provision of new/alternative car parking to replace the lost spaces. Where are visitors/shoppers supposed to park? Where do workers park, long-stay? Its difficult enough now.
2. Section 8 discusses that the town apparently requires more retail units and section 5.74 states that the existing vacant units are not sufficient to provide for the requirement.
There are currently at least 20 empty units in the High Street, Bay Tree Centre, Kings Road and Chapel Ruins area. Why can these not be filled first? Can these be adapted for use by retailers, with their advance agreement, so that shopping in Brentwood is an attractive proposition.
3. The consultation for the semi-pedestrianisation of the High Street was largely ignored by the Council, who appeared determined to press ahead regardless of public opinion. The subsequent decision to re-surface the High Street has been an expensive disaster. The road needs extensive, expensive repairs and although its appearance is pleasing, it was not necessary. Please do not make the same mistake of ignoring public opinion.
4. Regarding a cinema - something that has been promised for the last 15+ years. I still don't understand why this cannot be at the Brentwood Sports and Leisure Centre where there is the space for a new building, and the parking that would be needed. I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.
5. What is happening with the space that has been boarded up since the demolition of the Grade 11 listed building that was the Sir Charles Napier pub? It is very ugly at the moment, and a waste of development space that is sorely needed.


* Brentwood needs some open spaces and to retain its Victorian market town feel. The little "green area" in Kings Road makes such a difference and more like this would be very welcome.
* I was told a few years ago that there was a waiting list for long-term parking annual permits: a friend asked to park on my drive because he couldn't park in Brentwood while he worked. Also, I know one retailer who received £3,000 worth of parking fines for parking his work van at the back of his shop, because he could no longer get a parking permit for a local car park. He has since closed the shop in Brentwood High Street.
* The Council removed the small free parking bay at the end of the High Street, which allowed for 30 minutes of shopping - very appropriate for the types of shops directly next to this bay. A number of these have now shut - the shoe repairers, the florist, the fruit and veg shop etc which were independent shops. The Council claims to encourage these in section 8.37.
* Brentwood is too expensive and not an attractive enough shopping area with its difficult-to-find and very expensive when-you-do-find-it parking. If I needed to drive to shops, I would drive to Upminster which has lovely shops, a choice of supermarkets and cheap, available parking. Or, I would drive further afield for a much wider choice of niche shops, for example to Tunbridge Wells, or Cambridge.
* I haven't counted the empty units apart from in Central Brentwood (Warley Hill, for example). Why can these not be filled before considering building others? S. 8.37 refers to Brentwood Town Centre attracting many visitors for a variety of reasons including a high quality shopping environment. The current empty units are unattractive, and the choices of retailers who have recently taken some of the larger spaces are not conducive to an interesting and up-market shopping experience. And if, as per s. 8.56 the Council "seeks to retain existing large retail units as they can be a major driver of footfall" why did it allow The Dairyman and Wildwood to take the larger retail sites when they became vacant?
* Re. resurfacing the High street : Not only did this close the High Street for nearly a year causing major sales problems for many retailers, but it also means that you cannot cycle in the High Street, and nor can there be the annual Cycle Race that used to occur.
* Re. the Cinema: I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.

1. It would appear that the Council has allocated a number of its Car parks, as land suitable for building dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way. This creates two problems:
a) In fill like this does not provide an attractive environment - either for the new residents or existing residents.
b) There does not seem to be clear provision of new/alternative car parking to replace the lost spaces. Where are visitors/shoppers supposed to park? Where do workers park, long-stay? Its difficult enough now.
2. Section 8 discusses that the town apparently requires more retail units and section 5.74 states that the existing vacant units are not sufficient to provide for the requirement.
There are currently at least 20 empty units in the High Street, Bay Tree Centre, Kings Road and Chapel Ruins area. Why can these not be filled first? Can these be adapted for use by retailers, with their advance agreement, so that shopping in Brentwood is an attractive proposition.
3. The consultation for the semi-pedestrianisation of the High Street was largely ignored by the Council, who appeared determined to press ahead regardless of public opinion. The subsequent decision to re-surface the High Street has been an expensive disaster. The road needs extensive, expensive repairs and although its appearance is pleasing, it was not necessary. Please do not make the same mistake of ignoring public opinion.
4. Regarding a cinema - something that has been promised for the last 15+ years. I still don't understand why this cannot be at the Brentwood Sports and Leisure Centre where there is the space for a new building, and the parking that would be needed. I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.
5. What is happening with the space that has been boarded up since the demolition of the Grade 11 listed building that was the Sir Charles Napier pub? It is very ugly at the moment, and a waste of development space that is sorely needed.


* Brentwood needs some open spaces and to retain its Victorian market town feel. The little "green area" in Kings Road makes such a difference and more like this would be very welcome.
* I was told a few years ago that there was a waiting list for long-term parking annual permits: a friend asked to park on my drive because he couldn't park in Brentwood while he worked. Also, I know one retailer who received £3,000 worth of parking fines for parking his work van at the back of his shop, because he could no longer get a parking permit for a local car park. He has since closed the shop in Brentwood High Street.
* The Council removed the small free parking bay at the end of the High Street, which allowed for 30 minutes of shopping - very appropriate for the types of shops directly next to this bay. A number of these have now shut - the shoe repairers, the florist, the fruit and veg shop etc which were independent shops. The Council claims to encourage these in section 8.37.
* Brentwood is too expensive and not an attractive enough shopping area with its difficult-to-find and very expensive when-you-do-find-it parking. If I needed to drive to shops, I would drive to Upminster which has lovely shops, a choice of supermarkets and cheap, available parking. Or, I would drive further afield for a much wider choice of niche shops, for example to Tunbridge Wells, or Cambridge.
* I haven't counted the empty units apart from in Central Brentwood (Warley Hill, for example). Why can these not be filled before considering building others? S. 8.37 refers to Brentwood Town Centre attracting many visitors for a variety of reasons including a high quality shopping environment. The current empty units are unattractive, and the choices of retailers who have recently taken some of the larger spaces are not conducive to an interesting and up-market shopping experience. And if, as per s. 8.56 the Council "seeks to retain existing large retail units as they can be a major driver of footfall" why did it allow The Dairyman and Wildwood to take the larger retail sites when they became vacant?
* Re. resurfacing the High street : Not only did this close the High Street for nearly a year causing major sales problems for many retailers, but it also means that you cannot cycle in the High Street, and nor can there be the annual Cycle Race that used to occur.
* Re. the Cinema: I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.

1. It would appear that the Council has allocated a number of its Car parks, as land suitable for building dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way. This creates two problems:
a) In fill like this does not provide an attractive environment - either for the new residents or existing residents.
b) There does not seem to be clear provision of new/alternative car parking to replace the lost spaces. Where are visitors/shoppers supposed to park? Where do workers park, long-stay? Its difficult enough now.
2. Section 8 discusses that the town apparently requires more retail units and section 5.74 states that the existing vacant units are not sufficient to provide for the requirement.
There are currently at least 20 empty units in the High Street, Bay Tree Centre, Kings Road and Chapel Ruins area. Why can these not be filled first? Can these be adapted for use by retailers, with their advance agreement, so that shopping in Brentwood is an attractive proposition.
3. The consultation for the semi-pedestrianisation of the High Street was largely ignored by the Council, who appeared determined to press ahead regardless of public opinion. The subsequent decision to re-surface the High Street has been an expensive disaster. The road needs extensive, expensive repairs and although its appearance is pleasing, it was not necessary. Please do not make the same mistake of ignoring public opinion.
4. Regarding a cinema - something that has been promised for the last 15+ years. I still don't understand why this cannot be at the Brentwood Sports and Leisure Centre where there is the space for a new building, and the parking that would be needed. I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.
5. What is happening with the space that has been boarded up since the demolition of the Grade 11 listed building that was the Sir Charles Napier pub? It is very ugly at the moment, and a waste of development space that is sorely needed.


* Brentwood needs some open spaces and to retain its Victorian market town feel. The little "green area" in Kings Road makes such a difference and more like this would be very welcome.
* I was told a few years ago that there was a waiting list for long-term parking annual permits: a friend asked to park on my drive because he couldn't park in Brentwood while he worked. Also, I know one retailer who received £3,000 worth of parking fines for parking his work van at the back of his shop, because he could no longer get a parking permit for a local car park. He has since closed the shop in Brentwood High Street.
* The Council removed the small free parking bay at the end of the High Street, which allowed for 30 minutes of shopping - very appropriate for the types of shops directly next to this bay. A number of these have now shut - the shoe repairers, the florist, the fruit and veg shop etc which were independent shops. The Council claims to encourage these in section 8.37.
* Brentwood is too expensive and not an attractive enough shopping area with its difficult-to-find and very expensive when-you-do-find-it parking. If I needed to drive to shops, I would drive to Upminster which has lovely shops, a choice of supermarkets and cheap, available parking. Or, I would drive further afield for a much wider choice of niche shops, for example to Tunbridge Wells, or Cambridge.
* I haven't counted the empty units apart from in Central Brentwood (Warley Hill, for example). Why can these not be filled before considering building others? S. 8.37 refers to Brentwood Town Centre attracting many visitors for a variety of reasons including a high quality shopping environment. The current empty units are unattractive, and the choices of retailers who have recently taken some of the larger spaces are not conducive to an interesting and up-market shopping experience. And if, as per s. 8.56 the Council "seeks to retain existing large retail units as they can be a major driver of footfall" why did it allow The Dairyman and Wildwood to take the larger retail sites when they became vacant?
* Re. resurfacing the High street : Not only did this close the High Street for nearly a year causing major sales problems for many retailers, but it also means that you cannot cycle in the High Street, and nor can there be the annual Cycle Race that used to occur.
* Re. the Cinema: I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.

See attached

See attached.