Sir, I strongly object to development at the above site. As a resident of Priests Lane for 12 years, I have seen the volume of traffic reach already crippling levels. The foundations of my house shake with every modestly sized van or lorry that passes. At a rate of 1.4 cars per dwelling we might expect another 133 cars using the road regularly, in addition to construction traffic, deliveries, etc. Priest's LANE does not have the width to accommodate the additional volume of traffic and the size of vehicles that are increasingly using this road, and that might be expected during construction. Quality of life in the area is steadily being eroded by aggressive driving, compounded by inconsiderate and anti-social parking on this narrow road (particularly in the vicinity of 176). Further, you are building on greenfield land, when we should be prioritising the use of brownfield sites. The value of these green pockets of land can not be underestimated. The Council is disposing of valuable 'Natural Capital', which is a grave error.

There is very limited access to this site from Priests Lane - so I am not sure how traffic will get onto Priests Lane. Priests Lane is also very busy with traffic.

As a resident of Glanthams Road which is opposite the proposed site, I strongly object to such a large development. Priests Lane is very narrow and always very busy, particularly during rush hour when the traffic queues from Middleton Hall Lane traffic lights all the way down to Glanthams Road on many occasions making it impossible to get into Brentwood. There is only a narrow pavement on one side of the road making it dangerous to walk along - particularly as the road is very narrow and cars drive very close to the curb. 95 new dwellings will heavily impact this traffic and Priests Lane and the surrounding roads would be gridlocked. It would also have a negative effect on local schools and health care provisions. Schools are already oversubscribed (particularly secondary schools) and it is impossible to get a doctors appointment for at least 3 weeks at the local surgeries. Shenfield used to have a village feel but the area is gradually becoming more and more overcrowded and whilst I appreciate new housing has to be built, using Priests Lane as the accessway to this development would be a major mistake.

surely the amount of dwellings could be increased when compared to the development area and other sites.

With the increased traffic provided by the growth of Hogarth Primary if any further traffic is added to the Priests Lane area, which is already an exceedingly busy road, it will produce total gridlock

As anyone who uses priests Lane knows, there is too much traffic for much of the day. There seems to have been no consideration as to the impact on local residents. Gridlock will result, in addition, where will local GP and hospital services be provided?

The site off Priests Lane is wholly unsuitable for any housing as the local infrastructure cannot handle the increase in traffic. I strongly believe that the danger to people who walk to school/work/station along Priests lane would be greatly increased by any number of houses. The path is small and if you use the area you will know at peak times it is already overcrowded. Adding to that traffic and most households now have 2 cars on average is in my opinion both dangerous to people and would completely jam up what is no more than a country lane where at points two cars can not pass each other in opposite direction without being dangerously close. Greenfield sites like this should NOT be built on. The councils lack of forward planning re housing should not be to the detriment of the local people. Just because BBC now is under pressure to build houses does not mean it should be pushed through on a greenfield site so increasing traffic to a dangerous level, pollution to an already pollution hotspot. Increased school spaces and doctors (not provided by BBC). You (BBC) are turning a beautiful rural area (Shenfield) into a London style area. What I mean is we will all sit in cars and go nowhere fast, bringing all of the negatives that brings as per above comments re pollution. Keep Shenfield rural and look for sites where you CAN add the infrastructure needed, such as new wider roads (Shenfield choice of vehicles seem to be big and wide, totally unsuitable for the likes of Priests Lane), new schools, new doctors surgeries. Lets concentrate on the areas we can add the required infrastructure and build in these areas and not just Jam houses into totally unacceptable areas just because BBC are being threatened by the Government.

I live on Priests Lane, near St Andrew's Place, with my 7 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 95 houses would greatly increase traffic congestion, and impact road safety, particularly for children.

Also, it would place an undue strain on the already oversubscribed/stretched local services (schools, GPs, etc).

An alternative site, or at least adequate road access and additional local services are critical.

18.5 units per HA why so low . Why is school playing field land been used for housing , i thought those days had gone with all the encouragement out there to avoid childhood obesity etc .

Delivery forecast of 1-5 years is not feasible given previous representation 15459 from Thames Water (Mr Mark Matthews [6089]) who have "concerns over wastewater Services in relation to this site. Specifically, the wastewater network capacity in this area is unlikely to be able to support the demand anticipated from this development. ...It is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure. ...local network upgrades can take between 18months - 3 years to design and deliver". Has this (+other) turnaround times been taken into account? I question if this site meets the NPPF definition of "deliverable".

Previous Objection gave incorrect representation ID for Thames Water.
It should be representation ID 15472 - Thames Water (Mr Mark Matthews) [6089].

Suggest that this site should be excluded from the LDP and that an up to date Open Space Audit be conducted in 2018. I fully expect that this would result in retaining this Playing Field as a Protected Urban Open Space in Shenfield. This is especially pertinent given that 45.16% of the Green Belt Total (825/1827 net dwellings) is being met by the village of Shenfield. This area will be in need of additional public open space or a sports facility to meet the identified need.

Against the plan for this development, mainly for the impact on traffic congestion (at the Priest lane end AND the Friars Ave end). These junctions are frequently congested now and adding more houses and therefore cars, will only make this worse. Including the associated air pollution caused by the extra traffic.

Local facilities including Doctor surgeries etc are already overstretched it seems, sometimes requiring 3-4 days before you can get an appointment. Are these services also being suitably expanded to support the extra people these houses will bring to the area? One example, I notice the Rockleigh court surgery is expected to have a 15.25% increase in the patients it deals with. Will it be getting extra full time doctors and nurses to cope?

Dear Sir,

Re : Brentwood Borough Council Local Development Plan

OBJECTIONS to the proposed Housing development of land at Priests Lane Ref 044 and 178

I wish to object to the development of this site as described in the Local Development Plan.

I am a resident at 62 Priests Lane

My reasons for my objection are as follows:

1. Traffic Concerns and Road Safety

We live at No.62 Priests Lane - I have on previous occasions over the years written to the local councillors about my concerns for the current safety of the road - due to high speed of cars on the road at off peak times combined with the lack of pavement on one side of the road and high level of vehicles using the road.
Currently it is both difficult and dangerous exiting our property either on foot or in a car.
Children need to cross the Lane to reach the pavement to walk to and from school .

There are bends along the Lane which impair visibility and there have been numerous accidents over the years.

Congestion can be severe now at peak times of the day - traffic often queueing down to Glanthams Road from Middleton Hall Lane junction. This can only worsen with increased traffic on the Lane.

The Lane is narrow in areas such that is difficult for 2 vehicles to pass easily along that stretch. There is no possibility of a safe cycle lane on the Lane . There is no provision for public transport on the Lane .
Developing the sites above will only increase the traffic on Priests Lane.

2. Pollution

Pollution levels are already known to be at a high level at the junction of Ingrave Road , Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane. This can only worsen with development of the site.
This junction is where in particular school children walk through daily to reach 3 local secondary schools - Brentwood School , Brentwood County High School , Brentwood Ursuline Convent High School .
Increasing traffic and hence pollution will place these school children at even greater risk from the effects of pollution and also other pedestrians.



3. Protected Open Urban Site

The site has been designated as a Protected Urban Site - green sites within urban developments are known to be important both to the local community and local wildlife . Badgers , deer , foxes and a wide variety of bird life have been seen on the site.
Loss of this site would appear to go against both local policy and also national policies aimed at protecting green spaces.

I strongly object to the proposed development at this location. It is completely unsuitable for the following reasons:

* In Priests Lane there is already heavy congestion for its entire length but particularly from the junction with Middleton Road back to Bishops Walk where traffic often queues back from Shenfield Common back down Priests Lane. The proposed housing site is bordered to a large extent by the railway, so Priests Lane and Bishop Walk would be the only possible access points for the entire site. Neither of these roads are wide enough for that purpose and there is no room for widening them.
* Congestion is caused by school and commuter traffic. Both of these will increase greatly if houses are built on this site.
* Priests Lane will be unable to cope with the construction vehicles.
* The road is already dangerous in places for pedestrians because vehicles often drive on the pavement as the road is too narrow to accommodate the size of vehicles using it. This will get worse and Priests Lane will be even more dangerous.
* Pollution would increase as a result of the development. I am already making a detour to walk to work from Shenfield to Brentwood purely to avoid walking up Priests Lane due to the volume of traffic and exhaust fumes suffered in the route to Brentwood along Priests Lane.
* There is no bus route along Priests Lane.
* The nearby schools could not cope with the increase in numbers.
* There are no doctors surgeries nearby and it is already difficult to get appointments at the surgeries in Shenfield.
* There are no local shops to cover the area and parking at the shops in Shenfield is in short supply.
* There would be a further knock-on congestion impact on Chelmsford Road and Ingrave Road due to contractors and later residents, their contractor's vehicles, deliveries, etc getting to and from the site. These two roads are already brought to a standstill on a regular basis, public transport along those roads delayed and emergency vehicles struggle to get through. This situation would worsen if the site off Priests Lane/Bishop Walk were developed.

This is the only greenfield site in the plan and should not be used for housing development. Priest's Lane is already a busy road with a particular bottleneck at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane. Additional housing will only increase traffic causing further congestion and pollution. Existing services such as schools and surgeries will struggle to cope with the extra demand

Sport England objects to the potential allocation of Land at Priests Lane, Shenfield (site 044/178) for residential development in the local plan as currently proposed.

The majority of the site (around 4 hectares) was used as Brentwood Ursuline School's detached playing fields in the past. When the school discontinued use of the site, the site was used by a local football club. Historic aerial photographs indicate that the site was marked out for a number of sports pitches.

The site allocation opportunities and constraints do not make any reference to a policy requirement to replace the playing fields in accordance with Government policy in paragraph 74 and Sport England's playing fields policy.

The Council's Sport, Leisure and Open Space Assessment (2016) (which forms the local plan's current evidence base for sports facilities), has assessed community playing pitch needs in detail and has identified deficiencies in provision including for football and rugby pitches. The assessment has confirmed that existing playing pitches should be protected and improved unless it can be demonstrated that the land is surplus to requirements. The study has not recommended that any playing fields be disposed of because they are surplus to requirements. The Council is currently preparing a new Playing Pitch Strategy that will supersede the 2016 study which may show greater deficiencies of playing pitch provision than that shown in the current study. The new strategy should be completed by the time the Pre-Submission Local Plan is prepared and therefore should be used for informing the site allocation.

As there is no supporting information to explain the Council's position on the allocation of this site or any policy requirements set out in the allocation, it has to be interpreted that it is proposed that the site will be allocated for development without any replacement playing field provision being made. This would not be justified by the Council's evidence base on playing pitch provision which, as set out above seeks to protect existing playing fields due there being no surplus of provision in Brentwood Borough. In addition, it would not be justified by policy 10.9 of the draft local plan (2016) either which contains a presumption against development which would result in the loss of open space or sports facilities unless it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements. It is noted that the 2016 local plan consultation made reference to the allocation including provision of open space and/or sport facilities for public use. The omission of such a reference in the current consultation is of concern in the context of the need to protect or replace the playing fields.

The allocation would not accord with Government policy in the NPPF especially paragraph 74 which specifically applies to proposals for developing playing fields. None of the three criteria in the policy would be applicable for the following reasons:

* It has not been demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements as set out above;
* No replacement playing field provision is currently proposed as part of the site allocation;
* The allocation is for residential development and therefore would not represent alternative sport and recreation provision.

The allocation would also be contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy 'fields 'A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' www.sportengland.org/playingfieldspolicy which is used by Sport England for assessing planning applications affecting playing fields where Sport England is a statutory consultee. This policy mirrors paragraph 74 of the NPPF and is given weight in the development management process due to Sport England's statutory consultee role.

While the site may not be currently in use as a playing field, Sport England considers proposals for the development of such sites in the same way as playing fields that are in active use because development on them would permanently prevent such sites from being brought back into use. Even if the playing fields are no longer needed for use by the current owner (the Ursuline Sisters Brentwood CIO), this does not affect our position. Sport England's playing fields policy and the Government planning policy in paragraph 74 of the NPPF does not distinguish between public and private playing fields and whether playing fields are currently in use or not. It should be emphasised that Sport England's role is to safeguard playing fields for meeting the needs of current and future users. While this playing field may not be in active use at present, it may be required for meeting current or future community playing pitch needs.

While Sport England's focus is on protecting playing fields for meeting community needs, it should also be demonstrated that the playing fields are no longer required for meeting the current or future needs of the Brentwood Ursuline School that last used it.
While the protection of site and the removal of the proposed allocation from the local plan would be an acceptable solution, as an alternative, potential may exist for this objection to be addressed in accordance with paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Sport England's playing fields policy if the playing fields were acceptably replaced as a requirement of the site allocation policy. It would be inappropriate at this stage to be prescriptive on the nature of replacement provision as the Council's new Playing Pitch Strategy is currently being prepared which will be assessing current and future playing pitch needs in the area. Until this is completed, it will not be clear whether it would be suitable to protect the site and seek to reinstate it to community use, replace it with a new playing field on another site or seek financial contributions in lieu of replacement provision towards priority projects that will address community needs.

To take this matter forward with a view to reaching a mutually agreeable solution in advance of the Pre-Submission Local Plan being finalised, the Council are urged to engage with Sport England to explore a potential solution informed by the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy.

This is not an ideal site owing to the restrictions on access. Priests Lane is narrow and not a major road to support an increase of 200+ cars a day plus major traffic during construction.

This open space ought to remain protected. To build housing on it would lead to a loss of precious greenfield land and would also add to the already problematic traffic on Priests Lane, resulting in potentially hazardous conditions. Given this is currently greenfield, nature conservation should also be protected.

This protected urban space and greenfield land should be utilised for playing fields for the benefit of the local community and village of Shenfield. I believe such facilities will be required due to the increase in population proposed for our village. Please conduct a prospectively planned open space audit with the future in mind.

OBJECTIONS TO INCLUSION OF SITES 044 AND 178
I strongly object to the inclusion of these sites for the reasons listed below:-
Once designated in the LDP these sites will lose their Protected Open Urban Space designation. This designation should not be removed. Once it has been lost it is lost forever. Development of the sites should be rejected for the following reasons:
* The site accesses proposed are all unsafe for a housing development of this size onto a lane that is already too winding, narrow and dangerous, having become designated as a main distributary road over time; the Council's proposal to use Bishop Walk does not resolve the safety problem;
* In addition, traffic often queues back from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane to beyond the site access points. Developing the site would make this problem worse making travel at peak times intolerable;
* The site suffers from surface water issues and both Thames Water and XXX state that it would need serious thought and remediation to develop.
* The sites are immediately adjacent to two schools which either need expansion or are at their maximum buildings to free space ratio; the Council has recognised that school
expansion is needed to meet future needs, so development for houses prior to determining where schools should expand is short-sighted;
* Previous Open Space audits have identified a lack of open space in West Shenfield and this land has previously been identified as having value to the community as open space, despite it being in privately owned. Previous Council reports have recommended acquiring land in this area if it becomes available to address this lack. Both Sport England and the Essex Playing Fields Association objected to the development, concluding that this would contravene Paragraph 79 of the NPPF.
* While the Plan may suggest that brownfields sites be developed before greenfield sites, the Council have no way to control this in practice, and therefore it is probable that these sites will be developed before brownfield sites if the protection is removed.
The Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association has given the council detailed evidence as to why the site is unsuitable and should be excluded.
., it is long on words and short on facts and does not adequately show evidence to support the inclusion of these sites.

I am opposed to the inclusion of sites 044 and 178 as sites considered suitable for development in the Draft Local Plan for the following reasons:
1. The Local Plan has failed to support the selection of sites for potential development with a clear evidence base, most notably when it comes to highways. The absence of an evidence base means that development policies, which would frame the selection of sites, are vague and unsubstantiated. The inclusion or exclusion of sites, and the nature and amount of development on them, lacks transparency and appears random and inconsistent.
2. The cumulative effect of development is not considered in the Draft Local Plan, and no solutions are proposed to the impact on congestion which proposed development will undoubtedly cause within the borough. Congestion is already a serious issue for the roads leading to and from Brentwood town centre, and additional traffic levels will make moving around the town at peak times (rush hours and school runs) unsustainable.
3. Priests Lane is already used as a cut-through between Brentwood and Shenfield due to the congestion along the Shenfield Road. Long traffic queues form at peak times and these often back up to Bishop Walk, one of the proposed access points for sites 044 and 178. Increased traffic will not only cause even longer delays, but will worsen air quality and could cause safety issues for the many parents and schoolchildren who walk along Priests Lane to get to the several schools nearby.
4. One of the main criteria for including a site within a Draft Local Plan is deliverability, and a site cannot be considered deliverable unless there is a clear means of access. There is no such access to sites 044 and 178. Proposals have been suggested including St Andrews Place, Bishop Walk and the strip of land adjacent to No 61 Priests Lane. For various reasons, none of these proposed points of access is suitable (there are ownership issues with St Andrews Place and Bishop Walk, Bishop Walk is not wide enough to accommodate the additional volume of traffic and the land adjacent to 61 Priests Lane is also not wide enough and is located too close to the junction of Priests Lane and Glanthams Road and so is dangerous). Without a clear means of access sites 044 and 178 should not be considered deliverable and should not be included in the Draft Local Plan.
5. The land comprising sites 044 and 178 is designated as a Protected Open Urban Space. No justification has been given for removing this designation, therefore in the absence of development policies to the contrary the land should continue to be protected and so cannot be included as a development site in the Draft Local Plan.
6. Previous Open Space audits have identified a lack of open space in West Shenfield and this land has previously been identified as having value to the community as open space, despite it being in privately owned. Previous Council reports have recommended acquiring land in this area if it becomes available to address this lack. Both Sport England and the Essex Playing Fields Association objected to the development, concluding that this would contravene Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

In conclusion, the lack of a clear means of access and the designation as a Protected Open Urban Space means that in policy terms sites 044 and 178 off Priests Lane cannot be included as development sites within the Draft Local Plan.
Development of these sites would also cause unacceptable congestion in the area and will lead to issues of road safety, particularly for pedestrians, and air quality from queuing traffic.
A more comprehensive discussion of the reasons why these sites are not eligible or suitable for development has been submitted by the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association.

Our previous correspondence to Brentwood Borough Council has requested that our land off Bishop Walk, ref 178, is treated as a stand-alone site which should be considered separately from site ref 044 (Priests Lane) as our much smaller site does not share any of the demerits of the other, much larger scheme involving development of the playing fields and sports facilities previously used by the Ursuline School and others.

On the contrary, site ref 178, off Bishop Walk, has the ability to deliver a sensitive housing development within a speedy timeframe. The scale will be in keeping with the local area and will have minimal impact on local traffic. The site already has an access road (Bishop Walk) and services nearby and there are a number of genuine developers waiting in the wings for the local planning process to proceed.

This iteration of the Brentwood Local Plan is an opportunity to correct a previous flawed description of this land. Once again, this site has never had any public access, is not overlooked and has already been built on. It therefore provides no public amenity. Furthermore, it has never been used as playing fields and has been owned by the same family for more than 50 years so its history is well known.

It should be made clear that the Council's current suggestion that our site ref 178, off Bishop Walk, be included in their plans to expand the Endeavour School is not justified by any evidence for the need to expand this school and it is difficult to see why this was added to their assessment. This is another reason why the two sites should be considered separately.

In conclusion I strongly support the recognition that site 178, off Bishop Walk, be designated for housing use and that this designation is determined separately from any decision regarding proposed links to site 044 (Priests Lane).

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 am writing to express my concern at any proposal to develop sites 044 and 178 in your Development Plan.
I am a local resident who uses the roads in that area , and these are already at the point where at certain times of the day there is extreme congestion. Quite apart from congestion at junctions, especially in the Shenfield Common area the roads around Priest's Lane are already used as a rat run by vehicles seeking to find their way around traffic delays in the wider area. It would be reckless to add to this problem by adding more properties in the Priests Lane area, quite apart from the pressure this would create on all other services such as schools, and GP surgeries.

I am writing to express my concern at any proposal to develop sites 044 and 178 in your Development Plan.
I am a local resident who uses the roads in that area , and these are already at the point where at certain times of the day there is extreme congestion. Quite apart from congestion at junctions, especially in the Shenfield Common area the roads around Priest's Lane are already used as a rat run by vehicles seeking to find their way around traffic delays in the wider area. It would be reckless to add to this problem by adding more properties in the Priests Lane area, quite apart from the pressure this would create on all other services such as schools, and GP surgeries.

I believe Priests Lane is already congested carrying far too many 'Through' cars. Parts already need double yellow lining i.e. the last 200 yards approaching Friars Avenue from Brentwood.
If the development was to proceed possible solution(s) would be to:
a) make Priests Lane one way, running from Brentwood to Shenfield;
b) Put an emergency vehicle only gate across Priests Lane somewhere between Shenfield Crescent and Bishops Walk.
Either of these options would drastically reduce the current through traffic and make the proposed development more acceptable and safe.

Please find as follows our comments regards the above site proposal. Our objection to this store proposal and any other in the surrounding area is similar to many local residence.In regards specifically to Priests Lane there are currently traffic problems which include:1. Congestion caused by general increase in local traffic; 2. Congestion caused by outside traffic using Priests lane as cut through; 3. Congestion caused by using as cut through when A12 is congested. Mainly Southbound; 4. Congestion in rush hour, school times and weekends; 5. The congestion puts pressure on Priest Lane/Middleton Hall Lane/ Shenfield Common Lights; 6. Shenfield Crescent suffers as a cut through when Priest Lane is busy and puts young children at risk at both Schools in this area. It's been evident that the above has in the past caused emergency services to be delayed trying to break through the congestion. Trying to enter a housing estate from Priests Lane in busy times would be near impossible for the emergency services. We also suffer the increased problem of our drive ways being used as turning points when traffic is busy. This will eventually lead to most Priests Lane residence erecting gates on their drive ways making the area loose its natural look. In my opinion gates on ALL driveways in a road give the impression of insecurity to pedestrians in dark hours. The condition of the road surface itself is poor at the best of times. Whilst only being resurfaced recently, there are already dips appearing at the top end of the lane near Shenfield Crescent. These appeared before the snow so evident that heavy traffic is the cause. Whilst traffic is one of the reasons we should not see an increase in housing there is also the increase in general population which will no doubt increase the demand on local schools. It cannot be assumed that all residence in the area will be able to afford the likes of Brentwood School and I am sure the state schools will not be able to cope with an increase of children. The proposed land is of a reasonable sized area and one which could be well used to provide playing fields for local children with activities or for the adjoin schools. There is plenty of area to provide car parking for parents dropping off or waiting. Rather than loose good green grass areas in the borough I feel it would be more beneficial to utilise these areas for children to have outdoor activities rather than limited or even none going forward if you build on them. The Brentwood planning application site is already full of green belt areas awaiting planning consent. Amazingly including both Woodland School sites. How sad it would be to see the green fields of the borough become filled with housing and no fields or parks to enjoy. I hope that the above and any other consideration to build in the area will be reconsidered and a decision not to proceed is reached.

I am writing to express my objection to this greenfield site due to the following:
Priests Lane is a narrow road that already carries heavy traffic at particular times of day as it is used as a short cut. Additional housing will only exacerbate the situation.
Development of sites in Shenfield estimated to provide 1,000 additional houses will increase traffic congestion on all surrounding roads, especially at peak times.
How are local schools and surgeries expected to cope with additional demand?
I hope comments from residents in the immediate area are taken into consideration when decisions are made.

I am writing to express my objection to this greenfield site due to the following:
Priests Lane is a narrow road that already carries heavy traffic at particular times of day as it is used as a short cut. Additional housing will only exacerbate the situation.
Development of sites in Shenfield estimated to provide 1,000 additional houses will increase traffic congestion on all surrounding roads, especially at peak times.
How are local schools and surgeries expected to cope with additional demand?
I hope comments from residents in the immediate area are taken into consideration when decisions are made.