large number of dwellings considering the size of the development area in an already busy traffic area

This is 1 of 4 car parks in Brentwood that we are due to lose under the plan.
This will have an adverse effect on local businesses that rely on footfall from customers who park locally.
Without the customers many shops may be forced to close, affecting the whole town.

Car parking in Brentwood is very tight. Removing any car parking space will put the shops in jeopardy as car drivers will be forced to go elsewhere.

The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt (currently miss-categorised as Brown Belt) and in the absence of any special circumstances would by its inappropriateness have a harmful impact on the open and rural character of the Green Belt.
The site access can not be in accordance with acceptable standards and would lead to potential safety hazards.
The proposal size and siting represents and un-neighbourly form of development that would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties by having an overbearing effect.
The proposed development siting would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, light, view, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling houses.
The current carpark is a requirement of the town and continues to be required.
The current infrastructure of roads, buses, shops and trains cannot support the additional residents.
Insufficient parking spaces will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction etc. Already people are parking on the kerb opposite parked cars on the yellow lines.
The dwellings will create a cramped building to tree/protected tree relationship which is likely to place detrimental long term pruning pressures on both specimens arising from concerns by future occupants over issues including the size of the trees, safety and overshadowing.

166 units per HA what would the scale and mass be .

This is not a reasonable allocation because it represents a loss of much-needed car parking space and the Council has not satisfactorily dealt with the issue of its replacement.

As residents of Brentwood for over 40 years we understand the need to build new houses.To build on the towns car parks however does not appear to be the answer. BBC's VISION clearly states that Brentwood will continue to thrive and will provide a focus for retail, employment and exciting arts and cultural opportunities.How can this be if local residents and visitors to the area have no where to park.Parking spaces will need to be provided for the 45 proposed new homes.Where will everyone else park!!!

Parking in Brentwood is in short supply and this site should not be substituted with housing. It is within a conservation are and would not be in keeping with the surrounding area

To say that I'm alarmed about the loss of this essential car park is an understatement.

In view of the plan to build a very high number of new properties in Brentwood and surrounding areas, there needs to be additional car parking, not a reduction.

This proposal is outrageous !

Historic Environment Comment -
Constraint: Archaeological potential for the historic core of Brentwood

Historic Environment Comment -
These all form car parks within the historic town centre. Consideration will need to be given to alterative car parking provision and the potential for the loss of these car parking area to create either large areas of on-street parking or to discourage people from using the town centre. The former has the potential to unduly impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, whilst the latter has the potential to harm the viability of listed buildings in commercial use

Historic Environment Comment -
Although none of these are objectionable in principle, they occupy important town centre locations and will need to be considered holistically as opposed to in isolation from each other

I have taken a look at the plan online and have the following comments. The development in priests Lane seems not In keeping with the area given the number of dwellings proposed The identification of pretty much every car park in Brentwood is ludicrous. Have you ever tried to park in Brentwood? In tandem with these increased abodes you need to tell us the plans for improved facilities - schools, doctors, parking, healthcare, community, shops - most importantly supermarkets - services eg Wi-fi, rubbish collection etc. Not to talk about that at same time makes it impossible to have anything but a negative view on the proposal. Please share any updates

I think that the proposal to build on all the local car parks is madness! Developers are being given permission to build residential sites without sufficient parking spaces for the residences, in turn creating crammed and dangerous parking on the roads. Sometimes I can't get out of our car due to so many cars parked in the road and I have witnessed emergency vehicles struggle to get down the road, yet you are planning to remove all the public car parks. So, were would you suggest visitors park? If these plans go ahead, local business will only suffer as it will deter people living on the out skirts of the town from coming in as they won't be able to park. The most shocking proposed site is the station Car Park, why would you choose to make people lives difficult when they just need to commute to work every day? I think these plans need a lot more thought and consideration for the people that already live in and around Brentwood. I am totally against these proposals.

On behalf of our client, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd (Sainsbury's), we submit representation in respect of the consultation to the Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations document.
Sainsbury's currently operate a supermarket at William Hunter Way, Brentwood. As a result they are keen to be involved in the Local Plan Process.

The Draft Local Plan 2016 set out an objectively assessed housing need for the Borough of 362 dwellings per annum between 2013-2033 (equating to a total of 7,240 dwellings in total). Revised studies undertaken conclude an increase in objectively assessed need to 380 dwellings per annum (or 7,600 dwellings across the plan period). This is an additional 360 dwellings in total.

To achieve this, the Council are proposing the redevelopment of a number of car parks within and close to Brentwood Town Centre: William Hunter Way (379 spaces); Brentwood Railway Station (414 spaces); Westbury Road (97 spaces); and Chatham Way / Crown Street (122 spaces). It is not clear what level of town centre parking will be retained on these sites.

The loss of town centre car parking spaces could undermine the health of the town centre. Sainsbury's want to ensure that adequate car parking is retained within the town centre to ensure the town centre remains attractive. The document should set out clearly how much available car parking will be provided as part of the redevelopment of these sites.

We trust that these representations will be taken into account in the next iteration of the document. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

I have just viewed the above Local plan and wish to raise some grave concerns and objections to some of the proposals.
These are:
1) The plan proposes in excess of 500 hundred homes in the Warley area, (Fords, Council Depot, Pastoral Way) As a resident of this area I can say with some authority that the roads a facilities in this area are under strain now, they would be overwhelmed and unable to cope with such an increase.
500 homes would have at least 1 car each, the expectation that people will use public transport is just rubbish, it doesn't happen in the real world.
As a result the traffic, pollution and noise pollution in the area will rise. Its gridlock currently in The Drive and Warley Hill in the morning and evenings, as it is in Chindits lane when the kids get driven to school.
The doctors surgery in Pastoral Way (Beechwood) never has any free appointments when you need one now and patients have to wait for days.
This is the situation currently, imagine what it will be like with 500 additional patients (that is presuming only 1 person lives in each dwelling which is unlikely to say the least).
2) There is a proposal to build on Brentwood Station car park!! Ludicrous!! !where do you think anyone commuting will park? In the surrounding streets? only to be joined by all the additional traffic from the 500 houses!! This proposal also needs a serious re think as well.
3) I notice you have proposal to build on nearly all the town centre car parks, bar Sainsbury's and the Multi-storey in Coptfield road. Where do you expect people to park when they go shopping? I think this will result in the death of the shopping centre. The shop keepers suffered when the High Street was re paved some years ago because people couldn't cross the road to get to them and wouldn't walk the 50 yards or so to where they could cross.
I believe you will see a demise and shoppers will go elsewhere to places like Lakeside and Bluewater where they can park with ease.
I would therefore like to register my very strong objections to these proposals.

As a Brook Road homeowner for over 20 years, I strongly object to a number of the planning "options" submitted and have itemised above those that are most unacceptable to me.

Brentwood is regularly grid-locked, particularly during rush hour, and always at weekends because of our growing population, the town's popularity as a celebrity haunt and the close proximity to the M25, which is regularly closed with traffic being diverted through the High Street.

The small residential roads are often used as cut-throughs, and speed limits and general safety ignored by road users - Brook Road is a prime example being adjacent to London Road.

Regarding Honeypot Lane - the location is only accessible by existing residential areas with restricted arteries to the town (Weald Road including width restriction). Trying to turn right from Weald Road onto London Road is already a lengthy and dangerous turn.

To remove parking spaces when it is already difficult to park around the town is short-sighted.

To consider building most or all the required housing on one site (Honeypot Lane and Ford, Warley) will lead to even greater bottlenecks in one part of the town.

The charm of Brentwood is that, despite it being a busy town, within a few minutes (traffic permitting!), you can be driving past allotments, beehives (far end of Honeypot Lane) and the country park.

South Weald is a small hamlet, which does not have the infrastructure of roads or school places to cope with 200 homes being built a mile down the road.

Brentwood doesn't have the infrastructure either.

Development of car parks:

Whist development of car parks would supply land to develop, no strategy for future car parking appears to have been detailed. Without adequate parking facilities, residents will access retail outlets away from Brentwood and this will be to the detriment of the town which will further increase the number of charity shops and facilities for eating and drinking. To ensure that Brentwood remains a pleasant place to live will require a mix of establishments in the High Street and its environs.

Infrastructure:
Detailed planning needs to be given to provide sufficient primary and secondary school places for local children. The proposals for an additional190 school places seems inadequate for the additional number of dwellings proposed in the locality.
The majority of this increase will impact the number of places in Hogarth School which will result in increased traffic along Priests Lane which is already a busy and dangerous road.

Development of 95 homes off Priests Lane
We object to the addition of more housing on land accessed via Priests Lane which will further increase the volume of traffic using this road. There is already a high volume of traffic on this residential "Lane" - sections of which are so narrow that there is no white line down the centre of the road.
Detailed planning needs to be given to provide sufficient GP Surgeries and Health Care facilities to cater for the needs of the increasing local population. The current situation with regard to obtaining GP appointments is already of great concern and adding to the size of the population without addressing this sufficiently will put a demand on facilities that cannot be met and will be to the detriment of the existing residents.

It is suggested that additional GP facilities be constructed on the former site of the NHS Blood Bank in Crescent Drive entailing only a small reduction on the number of dwellings proposed to be built on that site.
In recent years the pleasant living conditions in the Brentwood area have been seen to be eroded quite markedly. Future development needs to be most carefully achieved in order to limit the damage to the quality of life for the existing and future residents.
The relaxation of the planning rules has allowed some disproportionate development and has resulted in an environment that is continually being spoilt by some building works (e.g., the grass verges), much of which building work is undertaken in a messy or untimely way. This results in continuing nuisance to other surrounding residents with little respite between one development ending and the commencement of another and this is before your LDP gets under way.
It is also of concern that there are now precedents for houses to be demolished in residential roads and their being replaced by the building of small blocks of flats. Whilst this may house more people, the impact on neighbouring properties is unacceptable. Seemingly, this could take place in any residential road where considered profitable by a developer. Little consideration, if any, would appear to be given to the surrounding residents.

Whilst building on some brown field sites could be acceptable, building to the proposed volume inside the green belt area is not the instant answer to the housing shortage. People who live in these areas also require space to live in and enjoy, the wildlife requires areas of habitat and the council have quite overlooked the required infra structure needed to support these new communities. It is already impossible to obtain doctor's appointments in the Brentwood surgeries, the district hospital barely copes and our public transport is nonexistent. Many areas are still not supported by mains sewerage. Brentwood town centre struggles now with parking but what are we supposed to do whilst all our car parks are being built upon? The enlargement of the Sainsbury's car park is a complete eye sore and the multi story car park is dark and depressing and both are completely not in keeping with the surrounding areas. Years have been spent protecting our green belt only now to find out everybody has been given a free hand to develop where and what they want. This cannot be a fair way of implementing the new LDP especially in the small surrounding villages. Many residents are still unaware of the magnitude of your LDP and the change it will mean for the surrounding areas and town centre

See attached.

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.