002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

The plan proposes adding additional dwellings in the Town Centre which cannot cope now and will be overwhelmed by additional houses.
The sites off Priests Lane are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
The site access points proposed are unsuitable and open onto an already narrow
and congested Priests Lane.
Traffic regularly queues from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane
beyond the proposed access points and a development will only make this worse.
The two sites are adjacent to two schools which must have a need for additional
land.
The development will result in a loss of open space in an area where we are
already short of such space.
These sites are the only Greenfield sites identified in the plan and needs to be p
protected.
No study has been made of the effect of additional housing on infrastructure, GP's,
hospitals, dentists and schools.
There has been a very high level of residents complaints and the Council are
taking no notice of residents feelings.

The plan proposes adding additional dwellings in the Town Centre which cannot cope now and will be overwhelmed by additional houses.
The sites off Priests Lane are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
The site access points proposed are unsuitable and open onto an already narrow
and congested Priests Lane.
Traffic regularly queues from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane
beyond the proposed access points and a development will only make this worse.
The two sites are adjacent to two schools which must have a need for additional
land.
The development will result in a loss of open space in an area where we are
already short of such space.
These sites are the only Greenfield sites identified in the plan and needs to be p
protected.
No study has been made of the effect of additional housing on infrastructure, GP's,
hospitals, dentists and schools.
There has been a very high level of residents complaints and the Council are
taking no notice of residents feelings.

The plan proposes adding additional dwellings in the Town Centre which cannot cope now and will be overwhelmed by additional houses.
The sites off Priests Lane are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
The site access points proposed are unsuitable and open onto an already narrow
and congested Priests Lane.
Traffic regularly queues from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane
beyond the proposed access points and a development will only make this worse.
The two sites are adjacent to two schools which must have a need for additional
land.
The development will result in a loss of open space in an area where we are
already short of such space.
These sites are the only Greenfield sites identified in the plan and needs to be p
protected.
No study has been made of the effect of additional housing on infrastructure, GP's,
hospitals, dentists and schools.
There has been a very high level of residents complaints and the Council are
taking no notice of residents feelings.

The plan proposes adding additional dwellings in the Town Centre which cannot cope now and will be overwhelmed by additional houses.
The sites off Priests Lane are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
The site access points proposed are unsuitable and open onto an already narrow
and congested Priests Lane.
Traffic regularly queues from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane
beyond the proposed access points and a development will only make this worse.
The two sites are adjacent to two schools which must have a need for additional
land.
The development will result in a loss of open space in an area where we are
already short of such space.
These sites are the only Greenfield sites identified in the plan and needs to be p
protected.
No study has been made of the effect of additional housing on infrastructure, GP's,
hospitals, dentists and schools.
There has been a very high level of residents complaints and the Council are
taking no notice of residents feelings.

The plan proposes adding additional dwellings in the Town Centre which cannot cope now and will be overwhelmed by additional houses.
The sites off Priests Lane are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
The site access points proposed are unsuitable and open onto an already narrow
and congested Priests Lane.
Traffic regularly queues from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane
beyond the proposed access points and a development will only make this worse.
The two sites are adjacent to two schools which must have a need for additional
land.
The development will result in a loss of open space in an area where we are
already short of such space.
These sites are the only Greenfield sites identified in the plan and needs to be p
protected.
No study has been made of the effect of additional housing on infrastructure, GP's,
hospitals, dentists and schools.
There has been a very high level of residents complaints and the Council are
taking no notice of residents feelings.

The plan proposes adding additional dwellings in the Town Centre which cannot cope now and will be overwhelmed by additional houses.
The sites off Priests Lane are unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
The site access points proposed are unsuitable and open onto an already narrow
and congested Priests Lane.
Traffic regularly queues from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane
beyond the proposed access points and a development will only make this worse.
The two sites are adjacent to two schools which must have a need for additional
land.
The development will result in a loss of open space in an area where we are
already short of such space.
These sites are the only Greenfield sites identified in the plan and needs to be p
protected.
No study has been made of the effect of additional housing on infrastructure, GP's,
hospitals, dentists and schools.
There has been a very high level of residents complaints and the Council are
taking no notice of residents feelings.

Paragraphs 41-42:
I oppose the 36% upward adjustment to the housing target made on the grounds of "affordability". The lack of affordable housing is due to prices being inflated by an unholy alliance of banks, estate agents, and government subsidy (cf. "Help to Buy" schemes). Even in London and the "Home Counties", there are many empty dwellings. Councils and government should concentrate on bringing more of these empty dwellings into use (the ability to impose a higher rate of Council Tax on such dwellings is one welcome development), instead of destroying the green belt. Within Essex, Brentwood will always command a premium, owing to its excellent transport links (both road and rail, as acknowledged in paragraph 26), no matter how much the supply of housing and employment land is increased. As a 25-year-old, I wish to make it clear that I object in the strongest terms to attempts at justifying destruction of the green belt in the name of "young people".

Sites 010, 022, 023A, 023B, 027, 032, 034, 075B, 076, 077, 079A, 083, 085B, 087, 106, 128, 158, 194, 200, 235, 263, 276, 294:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the NPPF also make clear that Objectively Assessed Housing Need is not the only pertinent factor in determining housing targets, and the significant amount of green belt land in the borough would be sufficient justification to set housing targets at a lower level than that suggested by the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (Brentwood's green belt is, according to the council's own strategic growth options development plan, "the sixth highest in England by percentage of total area"). Moreover, it should be observed that developers are failing to implement planning permissions already obtained (cf. section on Historic Building Rates, as described by the Council in its responses to Sajid Javid). Until such permissions have been utilised, it is unacceptable to reward developers with more permissions.

In short, I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing the housing targets.

Paragraph 63:

The Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017) has some promising ideas. However, it could be more ambitious in the density proposed. Given the high demand for housing and the excellent transport connections in the town centre, there should be a presumption in favour of taller buildings (preserving the green belt is far more important than preserving the so-called "skyline"), provided that they do not impinge upon the "right to light" of existing dwellings and gardens.

Sites 002, 003, 039, 040, 041, 081, 102, 117A, 117B, 186:

In general, I support the development of these sites, provided that they are developed in a manner that does not necessitate significant felling of trees now or in the future. Woodland is of immense value aesthetically, recreationally, and environmentally. Brentwood benefits from having woodland within very easy reach, and it is vital that this remains the case, including in the urban parts not designated as "green belt".
As stated in my comment on paragraph 63, I believe that the density proposed for these sites could be higher. Higher densities on these brownfield sites would then obviate any alleged need to develop other sites.

Site 102:

I support an approach that prioritises the residential facet, maximising the number of dwellings, subject to respecting the "right to light" of adjacent properties. I believe that more than 300 residential dwellings could and should be built here. The need for more medium-sized commercial units (cf. Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017)) can be realised through the repurposing/refurbishment of existing commercial buildings, including the Baytree Centre, which has never been at full occupation.

Sites 044 and 178:

Although not green belt, these sites offer open space within the urban area, and are thus of immense value in their present state. Furthermore, existing infrastructure is not amenable to development — public transport in the vicinity is almost non-existent, and the roads would struggle to accommodate the extra traffic.

Employment Sites 079C, 101A, 187, 200:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity.
The Council could consider larger allocations in the town centre, especially in underutilised retail areas such as the Baytree Centre.
I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing targets.

Re-submission of 2017 petition:
We the undersigned strongly believe that the building of an additional 130 houses off Priests Lane will create not only a strain on an infrastructure which is at capacity but also wholly unacceptable levels of traffic in the area, resulting in even more accidents, congestion and pollution to an already overloaded and unsafe road network.
(Submitted acknowledging the reduction in housing numbers and confirming the objection remains).

I strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built adjacent to Priests Lane.
Priests Lane is inadequate for the levels of traffic using it at present, as demonstrated by the frequent traffic accidents, near misses and levels of congestion and delays. To add more housing and therefore a great increase in vehicles and access routes to the present road situation would create intolerable conditions for both residents and other road users.

The volume of traffic, especially during the peak hours of morning and evening 'rush hour' means daily queuing vehicles, resulting in unhealthy pollution for pedestrians - including school children and older residents and frustrating gridlock for all road-users.

The road is too narrow to support more traffic. Vehicles leaving and arriving at houses along Priests Lane (including ours) need to use the full width of the road: this has become increasingly difficult due to the volume, queuing or speed of vehicles.

The proposed entrances/exits to the development site do not allow adequate views of the traffic they are joining and are therefore dangerous. The junction at Glanthams Road is very close to one of the proposed exits. Vehicles joining Priests Lane from Glanthams Road need to use the full width of the road and this therefore would make that new junction extremely dangerous.

The pavements along Priests Lane are very narrow in places, often partially or wholly blocked by parked vehicles, including delivery vans and builders' equipment and are largely on one side of the road. Pedestrians using these pavements include school children, parents with prams and young children (our daughter for instance) and the elderly - who are all put at risk in doing so.

The proposed development would also put further pressure on the local amenities and facilities such as schools and doctors' surgeries. There is no provision for solving these problems in the plan nor positive planning for the provision of amenities for the benefit of the residents of the town, such as a long-promised cinema or facilities for young people.

The proposed development would change the characteristic of the Shenfield locality- taking out the valuable and vital amenity of open space and replacing it with urban infilling. This is not a reversible change and would be at a detriment to the town as a whole.

The general road situation in the Brentwood area is abysmal. The town centre is frequently choked with traffic. I have spent many journeys crawling through the town on the way to and from my workplace. The roads are inadequate for the levels of traffic using them at present and would become far worse should this development, together with other proposed developments go ahead.

Planned changes to the town need to enhance the environment for current residents, future residents and others using it not to be at a detriment to all. I am very concerned that this is what is about to happen. There is no excuse for poor planning and development. I do hope this will not be the case.

I strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built adjacent to Priests Lane.
Priests Lane is inadequate for the levels of traffic using it at present, as demonstrated by the frequent traffic accidents, near misses and levels of congestion and delays. To add more housing and therefore a great increase in vehicles and access routes to the present road situation would create intolerable conditions for both residents and other road users.

The volume of traffic, especially during the peak hours of morning and evening 'rush hour' means daily queuing vehicles, resulting in unhealthy pollution for pedestrians - including school children and older residents and frustrating gridlock for all road-users.

The road is too narrow to support more traffic. Vehicles leaving and arriving at houses along Priests Lane (including ours) need to use the full width of the road: this has become increasingly difficult due to the volume, queuing or speed of vehicles.

The proposed entrances/exits to the development site do not allow adequate views of the traffic they are joining and are therefore dangerous. The junction at Glanthams Road is very close to one of the proposed exits. Vehicles joining Priests Lane from Glanthams Road need to use the full width of the road and this therefore would make that new junction extremely dangerous.

The pavements along Priests Lane are very narrow in places, often partially or wholly blocked by parked vehicles, including delivery vans and builders' equipment and are largely on one side of the road. Pedestrians using these pavements include school children, parents with prams and young children (our daughter for instance) and the elderly - who are all put at risk in doing so.

The proposed development would also put further pressure on the local amenities and facilities such as schools and doctors' surgeries. There is no provision for solving these problems in the plan nor positive planning for the provision of amenities for the benefit of the residents of the town, such as a long-promised cinema or facilities for young people.

The proposed development would change the characteristic of the Shenfield locality- taking out the valuable and vital amenity of open space and replacing it with urban infilling. This is not a reversible change and would be at a detriment to the town as a whole.

The general road situation in the Brentwood area is abysmal. The town centre is frequently choked with traffic. I have spent many journeys crawling through the town on the way to and from my workplace. The roads are inadequate for the levels of traffic using them at present and would become far worse should this development, together with other proposed developments go ahead.

Planned changes to the town need to enhance the environment for current residents, future residents and others using it not to be at a detriment to all. I am very concerned that this is what is about to happen. There is no excuse for poor planning and development. I do hope this will not be the case.

I strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built adjacent to Priests Lane.
Priests Lane is inadequate for the levels of traffic using it at present, as demonstrated by the frequent traffic accidents, near misses and levels of congestion and delays. To add more housing and therefore a great increase in vehicles and access routes to the present road situation would create intolerable conditions for both residents and other road users.

The volume of traffic, especially during the peak hours of morning and evening 'rush hour' means daily queuing vehicles, resulting in unhealthy pollution for pedestrians - including school children and older residents and frustrating gridlock for all road-users.

The road is too narrow to support more traffic. Vehicles leaving and arriving at houses along Priests Lane (including ours) need to use the full width of the road: this has become increasingly difficult due to the volume, queuing or speed of vehicles.

The proposed entrances/exits to the development site do not allow adequate views of the traffic they are joining and are therefore dangerous. The junction at Glanthams Road is very close to one of the proposed exits. Vehicles joining Priests Lane from Glanthams Road need to use the full width of the road and this therefore would make that new junction extremely dangerous.

The pavements along Priests Lane are very narrow in places, often partially or wholly blocked by parked vehicles, including delivery vans and builders' equipment and are largely on one side of the road. Pedestrians using these pavements include school children, parents with prams and young children (our daughter for instance) and the elderly - who are all put at risk in doing so.

The proposed development would also put further pressure on the local amenities and facilities such as schools and doctors' surgeries. There is no provision for solving these problems in the plan nor positive planning for the provision of amenities for the benefit of the residents of the town, such as a long-promised cinema or facilities for young people.

The proposed development would change the characteristic of the Shenfield locality- taking out the valuable and vital amenity of open space and replacing it with urban infilling. This is not a reversible change and would be at a detriment to the town as a whole.

The general road situation in the Brentwood area is abysmal. The town centre is frequently choked with traffic. I have spent many journeys crawling through the town on the way to and from my workplace. The roads are inadequate for the levels of traffic using them at present and would become far worse should this development, together with other proposed developments go ahead.

Planned changes to the town need to enhance the environment for current residents, future residents and others using it not to be at a detriment to all. I am very concerned that this is what is about to happen. There is no excuse for poor planning and development. I do hope this will not be the case.

I strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built adjacent to Priests Lane.
Priests Lane is inadequate for the levels of traffic using it at present, as demonstrated by the frequent traffic accidents, near misses and levels of congestion and delays. To add more housing and therefore a great increase in vehicles and access routes to the present road situation would create intolerable conditions for both residents and other road users.

The volume of traffic, especially during the peak hours of morning and evening 'rush hour' means daily queuing vehicles, resulting in unhealthy pollution for pedestrians - including school children and older residents and frustrating gridlock for all road-users.

The road is too narrow to support more traffic. Vehicles leaving and arriving at houses along Priests Lane (including ours) need to use the full width of the road: this has become increasingly difficult due to the volume, queuing or speed of vehicles.

The proposed entrances/exits to the development site do not allow adequate views of the traffic they are joining and are therefore dangerous. The junction at Glanthams Road is very close to one of the proposed exits. Vehicles joining Priests Lane from Glanthams Road need to use the full width of the road and this therefore would make that new junction extremely dangerous.

The pavements along Priests Lane are very narrow in places, often partially or wholly blocked by parked vehicles, including delivery vans and builders' equipment and are largely on one side of the road. Pedestrians using these pavements include school children, parents with prams and young children (our daughter for instance) and the elderly - who are all put at risk in doing so.

The proposed development would also put further pressure on the local amenities and facilities such as schools and doctors' surgeries. There is no provision for solving these problems in the plan nor positive planning for the provision of amenities for the benefit of the residents of the town, such as a long-promised cinema or facilities for young people.

The proposed development would change the characteristic of the Shenfield locality- taking out the valuable and vital amenity of open space and replacing it with urban infilling. This is not a reversible change and would be at a detriment to the town as a whole.

The general road situation in the Brentwood area is abysmal. The town centre is frequently choked with traffic. I have spent many journeys crawling through the town on the way to and from my workplace. The roads are inadequate for the levels of traffic using them at present and would become far worse should this development, together with other proposed developments go ahead.

Planned changes to the town need to enhance the environment for current residents, future residents and others using it not to be at a detriment to all. I am very concerned that this is what is about to happen. There is no excuse for poor planning and development. I do hope this will not be the case.

There are no suitable roads to adequately serve sites 044 and 178 as Priests Lane already becomes totally gridlocked at busy times of the day. The added population in the proposed 95 dwellings would become locked in during those busy times.
The proposal is totally inappropriate and would place these dwellings in completely the wrong place. Priests Lane is actually a LANE and not a ROAD with minimal facilities for pedestrians adding greater pressure on the VILLAGE that was Shenfield and the Doctors' Surgeries and Primary Schools in the immediate area. There is minimal space for parked cars and those that do park effectively reduce the traffic flow to one way only.
Former versions of the LDP have never suggested the possibility of inclusion of the Priests Lane Open Space as anything other than that use. This is a development proposed on a totally inappropriate site, once used as school playing fields,
that would become lost forever if this plan was ever to be implemented.

There are no suitable roads to adequately serve sites 044 and 178 as Priests Lane already becomes totally gridlocked at busy times of the day. The added population in the proposed 95 dwellings would become locked in during those busy times.
The proposal is totally inappropriate and would place these dwellings in completely the wrong place. Priests Lane is actually a LANE and not a ROAD with minimal facilities for pedestrians adding greater pressure on the VILLAGE that was Shenfield and the Doctors' Surgeries and Primary Schools in the immediate area. There is minimal space for parked cars and those that do park effectively reduce the traffic flow to one way only.
Former versions of the LDP have never suggested the possibility of inclusion of the Priests Lane Open Space as anything other than that use. This is a development proposed on a totally inappropriate site, once used as school playing fields,
that would become lost forever if this plan was ever to be implemented.

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

I am making comments on the plan and note the suggestion that Fords Warley and the Eagle and Child pub will both close as part of this plan. Clearly the closure of Fords is a massive blow to the area and I do hope they are relocating.
I note the plan for business premises. The problem in this area are that the requirements for business premises are not met by the current stock of properties available. As a small office style business which needs to be near to transport links the absence of suitable accommodation has caused us to relocate to South Quays. There appears to be a view that our of area business sites are the most useful. They are not for the current type of micro and SME that is being created.
My other concerns are about the road links and car parking as a consequence of these plans. I would urge the development first of a major multi story car parkin Brentwood before the other projects run. At present it is difficult to park and any change to the level of car parking to residents is likely to have a negative impact on the High Street and surrounding areas.
The Priests Lane development has real problems in terms of road usage. The minor roads that would be the linkage are already overused and are likely to be clogged. The impact on the limited car parking in Shenfield will also need to be considered. To maximise the value of Crossrail there is a need for a multi story car parking Shenfield which should probably be on one of the Railway existing car parks. This will allow Shenfield to be the successful transport hub it needs to be. However you will also be aware of the problems with the roads around the station and main street area and this must be addressed as part of the plan. I would suggest that the multi story be built and then the main street parking bays be removed altogether.
To get buy in from the local population to this I would suggest that in the first stage the car park should be free to local residents and that a residents voucher can be obtained. However out of town users will need to pay which will subsidise the project.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development for houses to be built on the greenfield land space adjacent to Priests Lane.

Priests Lane is an extremely busy and also congested road especially at school and 'rush hour' time in the morning and evening peak. The road is narrow in places, restricted in width with numerous curves. There is frequent parking on the Brentwood part of the road in the direction from Friars Avenue both where parking restrictions are present and where there are cars, delivery vans and builders' vehicles frequently parked half on the pavement / road causing obstruction to pedestrian traffic trying to pass often alongside a front garden hedge or wall. (Little if any parking enforcement takes place as this is an everyday occurrence)

There have been numerous vehicle accidents where excessive speed has been a factor together combined with the restricted width of the road in places. The volume of vehicles and their speed vehicles can make accessing and exiting one's own driveway whether as a pedestrian or in a vehicle difficult with restricted sightlines. More housing and associated traffic movements will exacerbate this problem.

I believe all the intended access routes to the proposed development site have their shortcomings with two viz St. Andrews Place and Bishops Walk being on bends and the third being very close to Glanthams Road with vehicle movements in and out.

I have lived in Priests Lane for most of my life and am sure a better less intensive use could be made of this green open space land. I understand planning permission has previously been refused by the Council and don't agree that the space should now be put forward as part of the LDP. I and many others think it one of the least suitable proposed development sites as the neighbourhood will suffer detrimentally.

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development.

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development.

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development.

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development.

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development

Site 178 and 044 are Designated Protected Urban Space that should be retained as school playing fields.

The indicative dwelling yield is excessive, out of keeping with the character of the area and aims of protecting greenfield sites and environment assets. On this basis, there is also an objection to the proposed Delivery Forecast of 1-5 years which would put this site ahead of development of alternative brownfield sites.

Site Access is a significant Site Constraint that is not identified in the Plan for these Sites. 044 and 178 are entirely enclosed being bounded by a railway line to the south, residential properties along the east and north, and schools on the west. The existing access is a single lane track hemmed in by residential properties.

Site Constraints also fail to adequately identify the significance of "localised traffic impacts". Site access is to/from Priests Lane and Priests Lane does not meet national highway criteria (insufficient road and pavement width). It would be unreasonable from safety, pollution and transport infrastructure efficiency aspects for Brentwood Borough Council to consider further development directly into this environment (compounding generated traffic from development elsewhere, although other developments would at least have the option of avoiding Priests Lane).

Overall, inclusion of site 044 and 178 does not appear to have been properly considered. The disadvantages are real and significant and are not justified by any perceived benefits of developing these sites.

Sites 044 and 178 should therefore be removed from the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as areas for housing development

The proposed additional houses on this land are totally unsuitable to the area adding to:
* Already congested roads during rush hour.

* Pollution levels, which in the Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Lane and Wilsons, already exceed EU permitted levels.

* Will further the already congested Town Centre.

* Priests Lane is a narrow road with a pavement on one side only and the additional cars, which this development brings, will cause further danger to schoolchildren and mothers with buggies.

* Brentwood Town centre is already congested and any further development in the area can only lead to gridlock.

The Priest Lane Site is the only greenfield site in the plan.

Significantly increases traffic on all surrounding roads at peak times
Priest Lane itself is a link for cars especially the junction of Priest Lane and Middleton Hall Lane is already a bottle neck.


Additional vehicles will bring additional pollution to the houses around these areas.

Current School and surgeries are already unable to cope with up current demand. Now adding all these houses - it will almost come to standstill.

I object to the proposed housing development on sites 044 & 178 at Priests Lane for the following reasons: Page 6 Para 14: In arriving at a list of preferred site allocations, we have developed a site assessment process. This is robust, balanced and wide-ranging in terms of technical evidence material for each allocated and discounted site. Comment: there seems to be no concrete technical evidence to support Priest Lane as a preferred site. Page 11: 'The Borough will continue to thrive with a high-quality network of green infrastructure, parks and new connected green corridors, providing cycling and walking opportunities for all.' Comment: Priest Lane is really quite a narrow road with narrow pavements. It is already quite challenging to cyclers and motorists particularly during peak hours. With the additional homes to be built in Priest Lane site, resulting in additional cars using Priest Lane, it will be even more difficult to cycle safely. 'Brentwood will grow sustainably with new development directed to urban brownfield opportunity sites, well planned urban extensions and key transport corridors. Comment: The Priest Lane site is the ONLY greenfield site in the plan