Preferred Site Allocations Consultation
Quadrillion Construction Ltd are a local Building & Development Contractor based in Ingatestone and therefore take a keen interest in local building affairs.
Following the prime minister's recent speech at the Royal Town Planning Institute conference we whole heartedly support the strategy a) not to sacrifice green belt on the altar of new homes, b) make better use of brownfield sites, c) green belt sites exist not to preserve landscapes but to prevent urban sprawl, d) look at sites that have previuosly been built on rather than opting for virgin countryside.
ANY site chosen for development must not cause substantial harm to the environment or cause the loss of ancient woodland, local wildlife sites and natural watercourses.
We therefore oppose development of the sites particularly allocated as 263, 276,034,235,087 & 158 along the A12 corridor as items a-d above applies in all respects.
We do support the brownfield sites initiatives and in some instances where green belt is within settlement boundaries, where services and infrastructure can be extended and utilised. Provided Open Space was maintained this would be more readily accepted by the community, be less disruptive to deliver and therefore more expedient and have financial benefits of being more affordable.

Whilst I understand the need to plan for inevitable future development, the plan outlines a disproportionate impact on Shenfield area and further consideration is needed for the various infrastructure challenges which currently exist today. Figure 14 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the current local plan understates the impact as the 95 dwellings under consideration off of Priests Lane is not included, despite being in Shenfield. Therefore, whilst other areas, excluding Dunton Hills and West Horndon, generally are expected to have increase in dwellings around 10-20%, Shenfield is outlined to have an increase in dwellings of just under 50%, from 2,053 to 3,048, once corrected for suggested allocation of 95 dwellings off Priests Lane, Shenfield (044 & 178). The main concerns are school accessibility and impact on local traffic, which is already under pressure currently without an additional 50% in capacity to consider. The suggested plan doesn't appear to consider the impact on school accessibility adequately. From primary school perspective, a new primary school is considered to take the burden from sites 034, 087, 235, 276, 158 and 263, Hogarth School is listed as potential candidate to take the uplift from other "Old Shenfield" sites, under 311 (Crescent Drive), 044 and 178 (Priests Lane). These sites have combined dwelling allocation of 55 + 95 = 150, yet the forecast excess capacity for Hogarth School is 61 places across all school years. This doesn't appear adequate. From a secondary school perspective, the plan doesn't outline a material impact. The majority of increase in capacity is expected to come from Shenfield High, from across a number of sites, not only those in the close vicinity. The total number of dwellings allocated to Shenfield High is 1,003 but doesn't include Site 263, which would be in the close vicinity of Shenfield High. This site has an allocated dwelling of 215. This site hasn't been assigned to any of the secondary schools so appears to be an omission which also needs to be considered. The total number of dwellings allocated to Shenfield High including Site 263 is therefore 1,218 plus % share from nearby villages. Excess capacity of 545 spaces doesn't seem adequate compared to the suggested increase in dwellings to be associated with Shenfield High. Linked to the school accessibility is the physical access routes and impact on local traffic. Starting with the primary school aspect in Shenfield, as mentioned above, any associated requirement for primary school places from sites 311 / 044 / 178 (Crescent Drive and Priests Lane) are expected to be allocated from capacity in Hogarth School. Access to Hogarth School from these sites is likely to be via Priest Lane into Shenfield Crescent. The local traffic in this area is already excessive and severe at peak times, as this area combines with a main route into Brentwood via Middleton Hall Road / Ingrave Road, as well as already being an access to route to Hogarth School and Brentwood School. An additional 150 dwellings in this vicinity would further exacerbate the existing severe traffic issues in this area. Moreover, Priest Lane, having expanded from being a country lane, is not well equipped for excessive traffic, being very narrow in places and without adequate pedestrian walkways in certain places and therefore doesn't seem appropriate to continue to increase traffic pressure here. From a secondary school perspective, as suggested by the number of sites which would be linked to secondary places at Shenfield High, it would appear that there is an expectation for further traffic coming from further afield, not just from those sites in the close vicinity to the school. Aside from increased traffic to and from Shenfield High, the vast number of suggested dwellings across Shenfield would no doubt have an impact on local traffic across Shenfield. Already, at peak times there are traffic challenges at a number of places across Shenfield: * Priests Lane junction with Middleton Hall Lane, as previously outlined. * Friars Avenue junction with Hutton Road * Hutton Road generally, by Shenfield Station * Hutton Road junction with Chelmsford Road * Chelmsford Road going into Brentwood. The above are main routes into / from Brentwood and would no doubt be impacted by the near 50% increase in dwellings outlined for Shenfield. From a personal perspective, living on Friars Avenue, I see the amount of vehicles which use Friars Avenue / Priests Lane as alternative route into / from Brentwood. I have concerns on the amount of increased traffic and the potential for further accidents as a result of increased local congestion. Overall I don't support the disproportional impact outlined for Shenfield.

I wish to voice my and my wife's objections to the Priests Lane Development of houses site 044 and 178.
My objection is based on transport bottleneck at junction of Priests Lane / Middleton Hall Lane and surrounding roads as it stands at the moment.
Adding a 95 further houses on this site is a ridiculous decision in an already congested area, especially at peak/rush hour times.
This is a green field site!! The only green field site in the plan.
Priests Lane is a link into Shenfield from the A127, and with a further 1000 houses on the Officer's Meadow site this will be much worse.
This road (Priests Lane) can not sustain the traffic flow at the moment, the state of the road is a mess, patched up in the short term, but never the less a congestion mess.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

In respect to the proposal to build 1,000 new homes in Officers Meadow may I record my opinion that this is far too many as the facilities in Brentwood are stretched to the limit.
Previously we suggested a complete new community with its own infrastructure and facilities, to be built on land elsewhere by compulsory purchase.
Our NHS is already under great pressure with sheer weight of numbers

In respect to the proposal to build 1,000 new homes in Officers Meadow may I record my opinion that this is far too many as the facilities in Brentwood are stretched to the limit.
Previously we suggested a complete new community with its own infrastructure and facilities, to be built on land elsewhere by compulsory purchase.
Our NHS is already under great pressure with sheer weight of numbers

In respect to the proposal to build 1,000 new homes in Officers Meadow may I record my opinion that this is far too many as the facilities in Brentwood are stretched to the limit.
Previously we suggested a complete new community with its own infrastructure and facilities, to be built on land elsewhere by compulsory purchase.
Our NHS is already under great pressure with sheer weight of numbers

See attached.

Brownfield site allocations: 311 Eagle & Child: This pub occupies a large site but in itself is not an attractive pub. There is another historic one nearby and too numerous food and alcohol outlets in the Shenfield Broadway area. 140 Chatham/Crown Street, 039 Westbury Road, 102 Hunter Avenue and 001 Brentwood Station car Parks: With an increased population envisaged and the demand for parking the redevelopment of these sites and elsewhere must be planned with these factors given priority. Greenfield land within Settlement Boundaries: 044 and 178 land at Priests lane. Development of this land is unavoidable if housing targets are to be met. 178 must take into account all the possible needs of Endeavour and Hogarth Schools. 044 Planned exit and a one through Bishop Walk are essential to spread the traffic load. Communication with St. Andrews Place must be avoided due to its bad sightline at its junction with Priests lane. A12 Corridor - urban Extensions: 022 Honeypot Lane. Excessive dense development to the boundary with the A12 should be avoided. the watercourse could be an attractive advantage to an attractive design. 263 east of Chelmsford Road. This is acceptable as it does not visibly affect views of Shenield housing, including from A1023. However it is essential that the BP garage with food outlet is included in the planning as currently traffic queing back onto the A1023 is a major road safety danger. 276, 034, 235 and 087 Officer's Meadow Area. Redevelopment of this area must be avoided since it forms an open "lung" in Shenfield which otherwise would become part of a brentwood/Shenfield conurbation as well as overloading the facilities in Shenfield. With good drainage a park and playing fields, which Shenfield lacks on any scale, should be considered. part of 034 could be joined with 263 satisfactorily. 037 is only a possibility for housing if this would not prejudice any future plans of Shenfield High School. 158 North of A1023 North of Shenfield. Redevelopment here is unsatisfactory for the same reasons as 276/235 above, again avoiding an overall Brentwood/Shenfield conurbation and housing up to the A1023 is undesirable as for 022 above. Dunton Hills garden Village. 200 This is essential to take main volume of the housing required. It must be well planned, with its own infrastructure and to help other area's local facilities being overwhelmed. General Comment. The above represents my comments on individual sites as a 70 year plus lifetime local residents. For those not mentioned I accept the site preference or for the larger Village sites I do not have enough local knowledge to comment. The sites in Ingatestone Village Service centre do not seem unreasonable.

William Hunter Way Car Park
Any development on WHW should include the same number of parking spaces, examples can be seen in Hyde Park and Chelmsford.
Shenfield Station needs to improve:
car parking by excavation from Hutton Mount at ground level, and maintaining that level as the underground level at the present car park site, providing parking at no environmental cost of inconvenience to adjacent residents.
I previously suggested free access to the back of the station and the taxi rank at the back with a covered walkway to the car park, this would prevent parking on the access road. If this had been negotiated with Crossrail it would have eliminated the need for the dangerous obelisk under the bridge for cyclists to negotiate. It would also enable drop-off and parking for elderly/disabled people.
One more disaster is the development at Mountnessing roundabout where the council has approved the high density development adjacent to the A12 with its CO2 gas density, subsequent health issues.

William Hunter Way Car Park
Any development on WHW should include the same number of parking spaces, examples can be seen in Hyde Park and Chelmsford.
Shenfield Station needs to improve:
car parking by excavation from Hutton Mount at ground level, and maintaining that level as the underground level at the present car park site, providing parking at no environmental cost of inconvenience to adjacent residents.
I previously suggested free access to the back of the station and the taxi rank at the back with a covered walkway to the car park, this would prevent parking on the access road. If this had been negotiated with Crossrail it would have eliminated the need for the dangerous obelisk under the bridge for cyclists to negotiate. It would also enable drop-off and parking for elderly/disabled people.
One more disaster is the development at Mountnessing roundabout where the council has approved the high density development adjacent to the A12 with its CO2 gas density, subsequent health issues.

William Hunter Way Car Park
Any development on WHW should include the same number of parking spaces, examples can be seen in Hyde Park and Chelmsford.
Shenfield Station needs to improve:
car parking by excavation from Hutton Mount at ground level, and maintaining that level as the underground level at the present car park site, providing parking at no environmental cost of inconvenience to adjacent residents.
I previously suggested free access to the back of the station and the taxi rank at the back with a covered walkway to the car park, this would prevent parking on the access road. If this had been negotiated with Crossrail it would have eliminated the need for the dangerous obelisk under the bridge for cyclists to negotiate. It would also enable drop-off and parking for elderly/disabled people.
One more disaster is the development at Mountnessing roundabout where the council has approved the high density development adjacent to the A12 with its CO2 gas density, subsequent health issues.