Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 087 - Officer's Meadow, Shenfield as it would involve the permanent loss of the playing fields adjoining Shenfield High School which meet (or offer potential to meet) community or school playing pitch needs. Unless the Council's emerging playing pitch strategy (part of the Sport and Leisure Study) demonstrates that there is a clear surplus of provision, the loss of this site would be contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the NPPF. Consequently, at this stage, Sport England would object to the potential allocation of this sites for residential unless (in accordance with Government policy and Sport England playing fields policy) off-site replacement playing field provision was made to mitigate the impact. While acknowledging reference is made in the allocation to potential for sport/open space uses as part of the development, until clarity is provided about the scale and nature of such provision this cannot be given much weight as it may not accord with the above policies. It should be noted that Government policy in the NPPF and Sport England's playing fields policy applies to both playing fields in use and those last in use as a playing field and applies to all types of playing field regardless of ownership.
The allocation should be reviewed unless the emerging evidence base demonstrates that there is a clear surplus of provision or acceptable replacement provision is made on-site or off-site. In this regard, weight should be given to concerns raised by Sport England and the sports governing bodies on the draft playing pitch strategy because if these are not satisfactorily resolved the strategy will not be considered to be sufficiently robust to satisfactorily demonstrate that there is a clear surplus of provision.
The Council will be aware of Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. To avoid potential objections and delays at a later date if this site is allocated for development, it is advised that discussions take place with Sport England before this site allocation is confirmed in the pre-submission version of the local plan. Further advice can be provided on how our concerns could be potentially addressed as well as advice on how to avoid some of the problems experienced by other local authorities who have allocated playing fields for development in their local plans.
No objection is made to the allocation of site references 034 and 235 which comprise other parts of this site allocation.

I would like to object to any proposal to build on green belt land.
Numbered in your draft plan as 022, 023,032, 034,087 235 and 079A.
I object to any proposal to build on green belt land within the borough.

I fully support this idea.
- It's very close to the excellent road links
- It's very close to Shenfielf High school which may have potential to expand, and locate an infant/primary school on site
- There would be potential for a pedestrianised route to Shenfield station (Crossrail) which could deliver a 'green' element to the plan
- The site is bordered by a railway line which reduces impact on the local community

1. Proposed Priests lane development - Site 044 & 178 - Page 185 - Appen 2.1

This area already gets very congested with traffic at peak times. Has the impact of the extra local traffic from 130 new houses been fully considered?

Are there extra provisions being made to provide medical ( doctors and dentists for example ) services to cope with the extra people? At my surgery, for example, we sometimes have to book an appointment 3-4 days in advance to see a specific doctor now. Extra people in the area without extra provisions could ( and probably will ) make this worse.

All the local roads in this area ( esp Priests Lane and Friars Ave ) are carrying quite heavy traffic now, often speeding traffic when the roads are clearer. The extra traffic from the extra local developments will likely make this worse. More noise, more speeding, more congestion ( at peak ), more pollution for the local residents. Was this considered?

Will adequate off-road parking be provided to accommodate this new development? Both for the new home owners and their visitors?

Will Speeding and parking restrictions be applied to the local roads ( including Priests Lane and Friars Ave and the other immediate surrounding roads )?

If you must develop, why not provide far fewer houses here and maybe a park? This would allow local residents and children to have a better environment to live in, less crowded more open spaces. You always seem to be planning to do the opposite!


2. Officers Medows development - Sites 034, 087 & 235 - Page 186 - Appen 2.2

Similar to Priest Lanes comments above but as its for 600 houses, to a even larger extent.

Will the 'officers medow garden gateway' ( or whatever it'll be named ) have its own Doctors surgery etc? My guess is no. More overcrowding for the local existing facilities then.

Where will the access roads to this new town be? Once again, the roads in that area at times already get congested. 600 extra homes with a possible extra 600 to 1000 cars ( or more as we become a 2 car per household nation ) can only make it worse.

I'd suggest this area is used to create a country park with a visitors centre/restaurant ( to gain income ) for the existing Brentwood and Shenfield residents to enjoy, in an increasingly overcrowded area of the country. These type of facilities are increasingly important to the living standards of all people as we are slowly crowded in together.

I object to the above proposals. As regards Alexander Lane, the lane is heavily used and would be dangerous for children from Shenfield school as their playing field is situated in the lane (this is a country lane).

Regarding the building of houses on Priests Lane, this is a busy narrow road, with no pavement on either side. At peak times there is a bottleneck at Priests Lane and Middleton Lane. These areas should not be developed as it would put a strain on Doctors, Dentists and schools in the area. I strongly oppose these developments.

Please treat this letter as my objection as a concerned local resident to the proposed development of a site for up to 130 new homes on a site off Priests Lane behind Bishop Walk. This proposal is totally unacceptable. I set out some of my many reasons below:

No suitable access: Existing roads are too narrow, are cul de sacs, or are already overloaded. The site is bordered by the railway on its longest side, meaning that all access would have to be from one direction. Construction vehicles and new residents would add to existing gridlock and danger.

Construction would impact on our local environment for years. This would be intolerable, particularly given the existing disruption caused by Crossrail.

Additional traffic would put an unbearable strain on this already congested route, particularly around the bottleneck at the end of Priests Lane and at the Ingrave Road/Middleton Hall Lane/Seven Arches Road crossroads which given the location of the Council offices you should be well aware of. The situation is already intolerable for both drivers and pedestrians trying to cross. It is dangerous now and will become more so if the development goes ahead.

Priests Lane is narrow and already taking a volume of traffic it was never designed to carry. It does not have pavements on both sides of the road and is dangerous to cross at the bend where St Andrews Place leads off from it towards the proposed site (which pedestrians are forced to do due to lack of pavement).
The site is a Protected Urban Space.

The proposal for development of Officers Meadow off the Chelmsford Road of 600 houses, recreational facilities, Surgery and traffic calming measures including safe road crossing features would be much preferable and safer. It would have easier access to a larger roadwork and be closer to the A12. There is room there.
I implore you not to go ahead with this plan.

Both these proposals will have a detrimental affect on the nearby roads causing considerable congestion on the already heavily congested Priests Lane and Alexander Lane (a country lane). A further concern is access for emergency vehicles. The roads are also dangerous for pedestrians.

These areas should not be developed as the increase pressure on facilities such as doctors and schools, hospitals. Both Priests Lane and Alexander Lane are in close proximity to schools. In fact Alexander Lane has to be crossed to enable pupils to gain access to the playing fields.

These developments will obviously be detrimental to existing residents and I strongly object to the proposal.

- Policy should be determined according to the views/opinions/wishes of the residents, if necessary by holding a legally binding democratic referendum, and not by Central Government dictate
- The Draft Plan only addresses "supply" and ignores "demands". The overwhelming problem is over-population - neither the world as a whole, the UK, nor Brentwood Borough can absorb or accomodate ever increasing population
- Any building should only be undertaken in the event of demonstratable need and not to satisfy pre-determined quotas
- In any case the Green Belt should be treated as irrevocably sacrosancts - in accordance with the original intentions of its founders
- No new building whatsoever should be permitted in rural/Green Belt locations - including on "brownfield" sites therein since this causes hideous impairment of the landscape viewable from many angles over considerable distance - as in Trueloves Lane
- Any compelling/imperative residential development should take place exclusively on "brownfield" sites such as redundant/obsolete industrial estates, eg. Water Way, West Horndon
- Any redundant/unoccupied offices and shops could be converted to residential use
- Town centre locations such as the Baytree Centre should be prioritised.
- Wherever possible, existing buildings (eg. shops) could be extended upwards with additional storeys to provide flats, residential accomodation
- Development/destruction/ruination of (inter alia) Officers Meadow should be eschewed in order to preserve green fields between existing communities
- The genuine concerns of existing residents should at all times take priority over the vested interests of developers
- All flora and fauna should be fully safeguarded at all times, in all circumstances, in all locations.

Policy 9.8 is contravened by the building of Site 079c, 079a, 128,034, 087 and 235 and the already approved Mountenessing roundabout development. These would produce coalescence/continuous build-up from the north end of Ingatestone village along an A12/B1002 corridor with very few open spaces.
Policy 10.7 (Infrastructure and Community facilities) is not addressed for the potential building of 128 new dwellings (Sites 042,098,179a,128) plus already approved houses at Mountnessing Toby Priory and Mountenssing roundabout. If all were permitted there would be the necessity for significant expansion of GP centres, Primary and Secondary School classrooms and sports ground within the near-locality of Ingatestone/Mountnessing. If any of these sites is developed, appropriate additional Medical Facilities and School classrooms/sports grounds should be in place before or at the same time and not after any new dwellings become occupied.
Policy 10.8 (Communal Open Space) is not addressed for Sites 079a and 128. Communal Open Space e.g. public cafeteria, play area etc, should be required for these developments if they are permitted. (No significant Communal Open Space was created within the recent Heybridge Hotel, Ingatestone development; this oversight should not be repeated). Since 079a, 079c and 128 have the potential for creating dangerous road conditions at road junctions and A12 slip roads. Lorries exiting Site 079c would create unacceptable danger at this road junction which has a "blind" approach from both directions west and east.
Policy 6.3 and 10.11 are contravened by proposals for sites 079a, 079c and 128. Sites 079a and 079c are located immediately next to A12 which will become even busier with the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing. Site 128 is within 30 metres of the A12. While Air pollution is considered in the Draft Plan (but not evaluated for these sites), noise pollution is not mentioned, but is a significant factor for these three sites, and should be properly taken into account.
Policy 10.2 (Parking) is not addressed. Sites 079a, 128 and Mountnessing Toby Priory and Mountnessing roundabout developments have the potential for creating c.300 extra cars (estimated 1 1/2 cars per dwellings) using Ingatestone village centre/station car park. A proper assessment and solutions should be made for car parking in the village centre and station; the number of new dwellings permitted should be reduced to prevent congestion in the village centre. If any of these sites and/or site 042 is allowed, at least average 1 1/2 on-site car parking spaces per dwelling should be specified to avoid on-street parking. (There is now significant on-street parking on the A12 access road along Roman Road from the recent Heybridge hotel, Ingatestone development, either because insufficient on-site spaces were provided or residents are not using the provided on-site parking spaces due to a high density of the dwellings).
Policy 10.13 Site 042 is prone to flooding; a proposed "solution" for a "tank" is unacceptable as it does not account for an alternative when the tank is full.
Policy 7.3 Proposals for Site 042 are for higher than appropriate residential density on a site with restricted access. The wood copse at the eastern end of Bell Mead should be retained as "Open Space" to conform to Policy 10.8 and to separate any new development from Fairfield flats.
Policy 9.8 Site 128 contravenes the village coalescence policy.
Policy 6.3 and 6.4 Crossrail Park and Walk from Site 034, 087,234: Significant danger to pedestrians would be created by the proposal because of the twists, "blind corners", narrow railway bridges and lack of pavement along Alexander Lane (Policy 6.4). Altering the configuration of Alexander Lane would contravene its rural nature, Policy 6.3. A more suitable site for a car park or a less dangerous pedestrian access route should be found, e.g. a pedestrian tunnel under the railway on to Long Ridings Avenue.
Before the number and density of new houses on Officers Meadow are agreed, assessment should be made of the impact how many new classrooms and additional sports field will be required to accommodate the additional children attending Shenfield School. These new classrooms and additional sports field should be completed before or at the same time as the houses become occupied.

Policy 9.8 is contravened by the building of Site 079c, 079a, 128,034, 087 and 235 and the already approved Mountenessing roundabout development. These would produce coalescence/continuous build-up from the north end of Ingatestone village along an A12/B1002 corridor with very few open spaces.
Policy 10.7 (Infrastructure and Community facilities) is not addressed for the potential building of 128 new dwellings (Sites 042,098,179a,128) plus already approved houses at Mountnessing Toby Priory and Mountenssing roundabout. If all were permitted there would be the necessity for significant expansion of GP centres, Primary and Secondary School classrooms and sports ground within the near-locality of Ingatestone/Mountnessing. If any of these sites is developed, appropriate additional Medical Facilities and School classrooms/sports grounds should be in place before or at the same time and not after any new dwellings become occupied.
Policy 10.8 (Communal Open Space) is not addressed for Sites 079a and 128. Communal Open Space e.g. public cafeteria, play area etc, should be required for these developments if they are permitted. (No significant Communal Open Space was created within the recent Heybridge Hotel, Ingatestone development; this oversight should not be repeated). Since 079a, 079c and 128 have the potential for creating dangerous road conditions at road junctions and A12 slip roads. Lorries exiting Site 079c would create unacceptable danger at this road junction which has a "blind" approach from both directions west and east.
Policy 6.3 and 10.11 are contravened by proposals for sites 079a, 079c and 128. Sites 079a and 079c are located immediately next to A12 which will become even busier with the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing. Site 128 is within 30 metres of the A12. While Air pollution is considered in the Draft Plan (but not evaluated for these sites), noise pollution is not mentioned, but is a significant factor for these three sites, and should be properly taken into account.
Policy 10.2 (Parking) is not addressed. Sites 079a, 128 and Mountnessing Toby Priory and Mountnessing roundabout developments have the potential for creating c.300 extra cars (estimated 1 1/2 cars per dwellings) using Ingatestone village centre/station car park. A proper assessment and solutions should be made for car parking in the village centre and station; the number of new dwellings permitted should be reduced to prevent congestion in the village centre. If any of these sites and/or site 042 is allowed, at least average 1 1/2 on-site car parking spaces per dwelling should be specified to avoid on-street parking. (There is now significant on-street parking on the A12 access road along Roman Road from the recent Heybridge hotel, Ingatestone development, either because insufficient on-site spaces were provided or residents are not using the provided on-site parking spaces due to a high density of the dwellings).
Policy 10.13 Site 042 is prone to flooding; a proposed "solution" for a "tank" is unacceptable as it does not account for an alternative when the tank is full.
Policy 7.3 Proposals for Site 042 are for higher than appropriate residential density on a site with restricted access. The wood copse at the eastern end of Bell Mead should be retained as "Open Space" to conform to Policy 10.8 and to separate any new development from Fairfield flats.
Policy 9.8 Site 128 contravenes the village coalescence policy.
Policy 6.3 and 6.4 Crossrail Park and Walk from Site 034, 087,234: Significant danger to pedestrians would be created by the proposal because of the twists, "blind corners", narrow railway bridges and lack of pavement along Alexander Lane (Policy 6.4). Altering the configuration of Alexander Lane would contravene its rural nature, Policy 6.3. A more suitable site for a car park or a less dangerous pedestrian access route should be found, e.g. a pedestrian tunnel under the railway on to Long Ridings Avenue.
Before the number and density of new houses on Officers Meadow are agreed, assessment should be made of the impact how many new classrooms and additional sports field will be required to accommodate the additional children attending Shenfield School. These new classrooms and additional sports field should be completed before or at the same time as the houses become occupied.

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.

My wife and I attended the presentation evening at Shenfield Parish Hall and now respond to what we saw.

1. We accept the need for more housing as Brentwood's contribution to providing accommodation to the growing population and think this is best served by finding large plots where a cross section of housing can be offered

2. We therefore thought the option of Officers Meadow (near to us) and other such large sites should generally be supported

3. We have far more doubts about the large extent of 'fill in' housing that seems to be in the plan which should only be done if it does not change the character of the living conditions of those houses near to the 'fill in' plots

4. Specifically the plot off Priests Lane would seem likely to add to the already crowded road conditions in peak periods and, unless a solution can be found to that problem, be a poor choice

5. We are also very strong in our opinion that building housing should come with a plan for services. (I grew up in Chelmsford whose character was wrecked by house building fast out running the creation of services and leisure facilities).

6. In that context the plan to build football pitches for Hutton FC (I am not a member and have nothing to do with them) near to Officers Meadow is an excellent one but should be extended to build an all year round facility perhaps including cricket and tennis and even bowls for the summer to the assets are used fully

7. We also feel that there is likely to be a continuing under provision of homes for the elderly as well as the young first home seekers. There are many large family homes in Brentwood and Shenfield that are now occupied by two people. The lack of quality homes in which they could downsize (and the badly thought out stamp duty tax) means many of the over 60s will sit tight whereas the town would be best served by accommodating their move and freeing up the family homes. This is not just about bungalows but apartments and smaller homes near services

8. Lastly a specific point as you had a display about flooding. There is an underground stream under the Courage Fields that runs under the housing onto Chelmsford Road and leads to some flooding when rain is heavy (noticeable on the corner by the Vets). It is not yet a major problem but should be noted and nothing done to make it worse

See attachments

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached