Site 044 & 178 are not suitable for an increase of homes in this area by 130.
Assuming that 80 % of new home owners will be families, average of 2.5 children/ family this will add an additional 260 children to the all ready over crowded local schools system
As this is not a low cost area most households will have an average of two cars thus adding an additional loading on the already overloaded roads of another 200-250 cars each day. Will there be sufficient off-road parking provided.or will the pressure to fit in more houses force the cars onto the roads
The roads linking into Priests Lane are narrow and not suitable for the increased movements during development and after completion.
The local infrastructure particularly Doctors/dentists are already not able to cope with existing demands.

I object to planning proposal at sites 044 & 178 Priests Lane. As a resident of St Andrews Place, a development of that size will have a very damaging effect on our lives. The morning traffic already backs up from Middleton Hall Road end of Priests Lane to St Andrews Place, the increased housing stock would add to this problem. I'm also concerned for the safety of my children who are forced to cross Priests Lane on their way to and from school, Regularly having to cross through stationary cars, into a moving lane of traffic coming the other way.

I am commenting on sites 44 and 178 in the Land allocation plan, Land at Priests Lane.

My objection is based primarily upon the road infrastructure in the local area but also other factors.

Priests Lane is already a narrow and congested road with a single, narrow pedestrian path. One already feels vulnerable using the footpath at peak times and I have previously seen large vehicles mounting the footpath to pass each other on the road. Also, one had to regularly cross the road to reach the single pathway - this is already a challenge at busy times and without some form of control would become worse should the additional houses be built. The path is also a key walking route for hundreds of local school pupils.

Cycling on Priests Lane - a sustainable transport activity encourage by the council - is already stressful. The road is narrow and busy, motorist become frustrated and tend to take risks when overtaking. IN addition, the drain covers along most of the road are deeply recessed which necessitates cycling well away from the curb, further endangering the cyclist.

The speed limit is 30mph but there is no discernible speed control on this road and due to it's straight stretches vehicles regularly exceed 40mph.

Currently, at peak times, long queues build up from the Shenfield Common junction - I have seen them reach further than Bishop's Walk. Adding Another 130 homes and more than 130 cars to the traffic will inevitably add to this. I live on Worrin Road - cars regularly use this road to avoid part of Priests Lane during the rush hour. Worrin Road also has no speed control measures - cars using the road as a cut through regularly exceed the speed limit on the section between Park Way and Glanthams Road. I can see this worsening due to the greater congestion on Priests Lane.

In addition, the proposed access points give cause for concern. Priests Lane is narrow meaning that a car turing left out of an adjoining road struggles to stay on the left hand side of the road. It is presumed that whichever access point is used, this would be an issue.

And finally - the construction phase will be particularly difficult - I cannot see how the construction trucks will be able to safely and easily access the site. Bishop's Walk and St Andrew's Place are small cul-de-sacs wholly unsuitable for wholesale construction traffic and Priests Lane is incapable in places of allowing two large vehicles to pass.

I object to the proposal to build 130 residential dwellings adjacent to Priests Lane, Shenfield because there is no infrastructure to support the increased population. There is no plan in place for additional schools or doctors surgeries. Additionally, traffic is already a problem in Priests lane. Often there is a very long queue to turn out of Priests Lane into Brentwood. The exit from St Andrews place into Priests lane is exceedingly dangerous as it is a blind bend for both drivers and pedestrians, so the likelihood of a serious accident would increase. Dense housing population is out of character.

Section 7, para 7.29, sites 044 and 178

As a resident of St Andrews Place I am extremely concerned at the effect of a new 130 dwellings will have on the traffic using Priests Lane. The exit from St Andrews Place is already quite dangerous. A recent hedge, opposite the exit from St Andrews, already means that when exiting St Andrews Place you are blind to cars coming round the bend in Priests Lane from Shenfield. Visibility looking up to Brentwood is also restricted.

In addition cars are now parking outside 2 houses at the lower part of priests lane, just where it is at its narrowest and there is a blind summit. This is worst at peak periods in morning and evening and the parked cars force cars that are on way to Shenfield into the path of cars coming from Shenfield to Brentwood. I have had a number of near head on collisions where cars have pulled out into my path. Increasing the traffic flow, fed by additional dwellings on or around Priests Lane, I believe will increase this danger on what is a narrow road which is a main local artery. In addition these parked cars tend to be partly on the pavement, forcing pedestrians to use the road with buggies, which again is a further danger that will be increased if sites 044 and 178 are developed.

Traffic problems
Safety for pedestrians - cyclists
Infrastructure not able to cope

Ref 044 and 178 - Proposed Housing Development at Priests Lane

As a resident of Priests Lane I wish to object to the proposed development of up to 130 dwellings at the rear of Priests Lane. Priests Lane is a very busy road and is very narrow in places. As well as a narrow vehicle carriageway there is only in single footpath in large sections of Priests Lane and the footpath is also very narrow. Priests Lane is used as a cut through and already carries too much traffic for the size of the carriageway and that traffic is not controlled in any way, resulting in many drivers speeding. The road is quite bendy in parts resulting in many houses, including mine, having very restricted vision when leaving our driveways. The proposed development will add to this already very busy traffic and is a step too far in my view.

I object on the grounds of traffic concerns, safety and infrastructure.
Traffic:
- Already very congestion and dangerous given lack of pavement both sides of road
- There is insufficient parking
- Traffic will overflow/divert into nearby roads that are also unsuited.
Safety:
- This congestion create safety concerns for all road users, including pedestrians

We should be using these irreplaceable green spaces, playing fields more, not destroying them forever.

I agree wholeheartedly with all the objections raised to the proposed building between St Andrews Place, Bishops Walk and Hogarth School. Including - narrow roads creating difficult access for emergency vehicles, lack of pavements and those in poor condition, overcrowding of schools and GP Surgeries. Add to this parking!

Moreover I feel it totally fool hardy to build on sportsfields.

With doctors and indeed the Government telling us that children and young people do not get enough exercise, resulting in overweight and diabetes, we should be using these irreplaceable green spaces more, destroying them forever!

The present polution is high without further traffic. Access and parking will be a major problem as well as safety to people using the footpath, which for much of Priests Lane is only on one side of the road.

Too much traffic

Volume of traffic is great enough at the present time, I would not like to see an increase.

1. Traffic congestion and pollution is already at an unacceptable level
2. Road safety generally - particularly at pinch points where there is currently barely room two vehicles to pass
3. Safety of pedestrians and cyclists
4. Infrastructure - particularly the pressure on health care which has noticeably become worse over recent years

The traffic around Shenfield, especially Priests Lane and Chelmsford Road every morning is at a standstill - it makes getting anywhere by car a nightmare - so my family walked to school. Recently my son was knocked down by a driver racing the lights because of the traffic, even though the green man was flashing on Chelmsford Road.

Shopping in Shenfield again is impossible with limited parking and local schools are over subscribed, with classes so full even local children are not receiving places. I cannot see how Shenfield will cope with the extra traffic and population. More houses mean you will need more schools. doctors, parking, facilities and larger roads to take the traffic impact.

Traffic concerns
School places not enough
Safety in Priests Lane which is very narrow
Lack of parking already
We already have huge queues and congestion in Priests Lane, if this project goes ahead it will be much worse.

Other areas to develop.

Re sites 044 and 178. Priests Lane is incapable of handling the extra road traffic implied,and in safety.
Specifically,additional traffic from any development should not be allowed to access Priests Lane via St Andrews close,due to the lack of visibility at this junction.and consequent risk of even more accidents than now.

Traffic along Priests Lane is already too great for safety and local accessability.
Any development on sites 044 and 178 should establish a primary access route via Hogarth Avenue,leading directly onto the Ingrave Road A128. The existing pedestrian traffic lights at this junction could then be modified to control traffic egress/entry in safety.

I am concerned that the increased traffic flow for an already busy road. This creates safety concerns for all but especially for mothers and young children.

Local schools, doctors and other public facilities will be unable to cope.

Ref 044 and 178 - Proposed Housing Development at Priests Lane
As a resident of Priests Lane I object very strongly to the proposed development of up to 130 dwellings at the rear of Priests Lane. The road is currently used as a cut through to the station and the road has no pavement on one side and is also quite narrow in places . The extra dwellings will put further traffic pressure on it , making it dangerous and congested at certain times of the day. I already have quite restricted vision when trying to get out of my driveway due to a slight bend in the road and we have no traffic calming in place.

Sir,
I strongly object to additional houses being built on Priests Lane. It is imperative that we preserve pockets of green spaces within our already overcrowded urban areas. The value of these green spaces cannot be underestimated. Furthermore, Priests Lane can barely cope with existing traffic flows. Another 130 residences (with upwards of 130 cars, presumably) will cripple our already overwhelmed infrastructure.

Re: Sites 044 & 178 - Land at Priests Lane, Brentwood

I live on Priests Lane, near St Andrew's Place, with my 5 year old son.

Priests Lane is already a very busy road with speeding cars and heavy congestion particularly towards Middleton Hall Lane around school opening and closing times.

The proposed development of 100+ houses and/or sports facilities would greatly increase traffic congestion, and have a very negative effect on both quality of life and road safety, particularly for children.

Also, Brentwood School's sports facilities are already open to the public and very close to the proposed site.

See attached.

Having recently moved to the area I am somewhat concerned already at the level of traffic that builds up around Priests Lane, Worrin Road and surrounding areas. I am a keen cyclist and have had many a near miss with cars going from one location to another in a short time. During the morning rush hours cars can be backed up from along Worrin Road, all the way along Priests Lane. While this is inconvenient, more importantly it is dangerous. There are many children walking down the roads to schools. How are emergency services expected to service the area. I would hope common sense is used and planning is not granted!

I consider the proposed development on the playing fields between St Andrews Place and Hogarth School a bad decision by Brentwood Council.

It will bring chaos to already over crowded roads.

The drainage of rain, indeed flood water, is already causing problems for the developers on the Tredgett garage site, Ingrave Road near Shenfield Common, there is inadequate drainage.

The extra traffic must be an increased danger to the small children going to the schools.

It is difficult to comment on these two adjoining sites without knowing where the planned access point(s) would be to Priests Lane.

Two of the three possibilities, via Bishop Walk or via St Andrews Place would emerge on a bend in Priests Lane. Not ideal when drivers often take these bends at speed. (I hear the squealing of brakes constantly when people have failed to slow down sufficiently).

There is already a long traffic tailback on Priests Lane every weekday morning and more houses will make the problem worse increasing travel time to work and school.

Section 7
Paragraph 7.29 - Site Selection
Sites 044 & 178 - Land at Priests Lane, Brentwood

I express my concerns in the strongest terms to the development of these 2 sites on the following grounds:

1. The traffic congestion in Priest Lane is so bad that it makes it difficult for cars to exit from my cul-de-sac as the queue goes beyond my road. When I am working in the High St, it's quicker to walk than drive, only drawback is that I suffer from which is exacerbated by traffic noise and fumes from the queue of cars. Not only that, there are scores of school children that use this route having to breathe in the car emissions. It is dangerous to cross Priest Lane as its so busy, narrow and winding but you have no choice if you live on side without footpath! This development would increase both cars and pedestrian traffic to this street network, way beyond its design and capability. It would seriously undermine quality of life for all.

2. This open space is used by a wide range of birdlife, including pheasant, muntjac deer, badger, foxes, shrews and rabbit and the wildflower meadow attracts butterflies. It is what makes Brentwood such a lovely and safe place for my children to grow up.

3. The London Crossrail Scheme will add to the traffic chaos on top of this development increasing fumes, noise pollution and safety problems for pedestrians and cyclists. In my experience, even though I drive within the speed limit of 30mph, I have no control over reckless drivers overtaking me and speeding off way over 30mph!
4. Access by emergency services would be further restricted with knock-on effects on health and crime.

5. The dirt, noise and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this development would be intolerable for the area over many years. Heavy construction lorries will only damage the already fragile network of pipes beneath the road.

Section 7
Paragraph 7.29 - Site Selection
Sites 044 & 178 - Land at Priest's Lane, Brentwood

My concerns to the development of this site are in the strongest terms on the following grounds:

1. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level. This will be exacerbated with the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priest's Lane with only a single narrow footpath on one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks. Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the area and is irresponsible.

2. This is a Protected Open Space within the Metropolitan Green Belt and is virgin land, NOT a brownfield site, and provides essential habitat for wildlife including a wide range of birdlife, deer and other fauna and flora. There are also several established trees, some of which are quite rare species. Such habitats maintain the balance of character associated with Brentwood and this loss would again result in serious detriment to the area.

3. Even to my layman's view the high density of 96 dwellings per hectare, as stated in the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. Once more resulting in serious detriment to the area.

4. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the east, which is soon to be added to by the London Crossrail Scheme. Such land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise pollution and safety.

5. Access by emergency services would be further restricted with concomitant effects on health and crime.

6. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.

7. It is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate pedestrian and cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential areas, such as Priest's Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.

I was dismayed to hear that Brentwood Borough Council has issued its Draft Local Development Plan proposing that the land behind Priests Lane should be developed with 130 dwellings. This is absolutely detrimental to the community particularly the environment, safety, increased housing density. There are plans also for public sports facility which has grave consequences to nature and other utilities which include water run-off, light and noise pollution.