I have to object to the development plan, Shenfield is currently at bursting point for residents. The rush hour traffic is horrendous and schools and in area are struggling to cope with numbers, some local children are at this time being pushed to attend schools in neighbouring boroughs. The area I feel most strongly about it the development proposed in officer's meadow, this is an important site for the local people and very valuable for wildlife as some of the ground can be considered wetland area. This destruction will have a hugely adverse affect on the natural surrounds of this part of the borough. Public transport in the area is insufficient to support a large growth in population with train services to London full to bursting point most of the day, everyday. The introduction of cross rail will be of no benefit to Brentwood residents on their journey home as the trains leaving London are over crowded already. Roads in the Brentwood area especially the a12 will grind to a halt with the additional traffic, perhaps planners should concentrate on the a127 corridor as it is a much quieter road and has capacity to handle more traffic. I feel the loss of green space will have a huge adverse affect on the Brentwood and Shenfield areas, especially with the current rise in anti social behaviour in certain areas. Removing the open space for the kids and youth to play will only further compound this problem and have a negative affect on the health of our residents. Perhaps the council should look at developing sites beyond current brown and green field sites, growing new towns and villages where they can form their own identities without overloading the current infrastructure. These new outlaying sites would enable us to keep valuable open and usable green spaces and have a positive effect on residents health and well being providing space for recreation and clean fresh air. I want it put on record that none of the residents of Brentwood want these green spaces to be lost, while I appreciate there is the need for new housing this should be controlled and considerate to our residents and the environment. If the council continue with the reckless destruction of our towns they will loose any faith they have from the residents that they are equipped to lead this town forward in a positive and successful manner.

Priests Lane Development - Site Ref 044 and 178
I am writing in respect of the above proposals of the redevelopment of the land behind Priests Lane and strongly object on the following grounds:
1) The proposed development on the land would be detrimental to the current scene from our property. I understand that this site is the only greenfield site in the local plan which looks set on turning Brentwood/Shenfield into a concrete jungle - I am glad that Shenfield Common has not been included or will that follow in the future?
2) The proposed development would increase the traffic in Priest lane which is already very heavy during the morning & evening. Priests Lane, as the name suggests is a narrow winding lane which has already become a busy route and the possibility of a large increase to the regular vehicles using the lane together with private visitors and delivery trucks would make the congestion even worse. The lane does not have pavements on both sides along the full distance and I think it is dangerous enough already for the many joggers using the lane - adding more residents to the area would increase this problem. It is not only the addition of vehicles brought about by development of this site that would be problematic. There would be considerable added congestion and pollution from increased use of Priests Lane which has become a route for through traffic and is increasing already from vehicles from the new A127 development.
3) I am a resident in Bishop Walk which is a quiet close with 6 residential homes on both sides with off road parking with open views to natural landscapes. Were this proposal to be granted it would drastically change the aspect of the area and the new properties would be close to existing boundaries and overlook the existing residential dwellings. The proposed site access shows as being Priests Lane and a potential for a secondary access via Bishop Walk. Using Bishop Walk would be UNFAIR and totally UNACCEPTBALE. Why would you first of all think of developing this particular site and then further turn a quiet close into an access to a large estate as part of it? It's madness.
4) Already we are seeing office blocks and those above shops being turned into housing which together with other developments will undoubtedly place further pressure on public services. How will doctor and dentist surgeries cope with so much additional demand as well as schools?
I wholeheartedly implore you to abandon your proposals for this site and not destroy the culture and outlook of this part of the Brentwood/Shenfield.

Priests Lane Development - Site Ref 044 and 178
I am writing in respect of the above proposals of the redevelopment of the land behind Priests Lane and strongly object on the following grounds:
1) The proposed development on the land would be detrimental to the current scene from our property. I understand that this site is the only greenfield site in the local plan which looks set on turning Brentwood/Shenfield into a concrete jungle - I am glad that Shenfield Common has not been included or will that follow in the future?
2) The proposed development would increase the traffic in Priest lane which is already very heavy during the morning & evening. Priests Lane, as the name suggests is a narrow winding lane which has already become a busy route and the possibility of a large increase to the regular vehicles using the lane together with private visitors and delivery trucks would make the congestion even worse. The lane does not have pavements on both sides along the full distance and I think it is dangerous enough already for the many joggers using the lane - adding more residents to the area would increase this problem. It is not only the addition of vehicles brought about by development of this site that would be problematic. There would be considerable added congestion and pollution from increased use of Priests Lane which has become a route for through traffic and is increasing already from vehicles from the new A127 development.
3) I am a resident in Bishop Walk which is a quiet close with 6 residential homes on both sides with off road parking with open views to natural landscapes. Were this proposal to be granted it would drastically change the aspect of the area and the new properties would be close to existing boundaries and overlook the existing residential dwellings. The proposed site access shows as being Priests Lane and a potential for a secondary access via Bishop Walk. Using Bishop Walk would be UNFAIR and totally UNACCEPTBALE. Why would you first of all think of developing this particular site and then further turn a quiet close into an access to a large estate as part of it? It's madness.
4) Already we are seeing office blocks and those above shops being turned into housing which together with other developments will undoubtedly place further pressure on public services. How will doctor and dentist surgeries cope with so much additional demand as well as schools?
I wholeheartedly implore you to abandon your proposals for this site and not destroy the culture and outlook of this part of the Brentwood/Shenfield.

Priests Lane Development - Site Ref 044 and 178
I am writing in respect of the above proposals of the redevelopment of the land behind Priests Lane and strongly object on the following grounds:
1) The proposed development on the land would be detrimental to the current scene from our property. I understand that this site is the only greenfield site in the local plan which looks set on turning Brentwood/Shenfield into a concrete jungle - I am glad that Shenfield Common has not been included or will that follow in the future?
2) The proposed development would increase the traffic in Priest lane which is already very heavy during the morning & evening. Priests Lane, as the name suggests is a narrow winding lane which has already become a busy route and the possibility of a large increase to the regular vehicles using the lane together with private visitors and delivery trucks would make the congestion even worse. The lane does not have pavements on both sides along the full distance and I think it is dangerous enough already for the many joggers using the lane - adding more residents to the area would increase this problem. It is not only the addition of vehicles brought about by development of this site that would be problematic. There would be considerable added congestion and pollution from increased use of Priests Lane which has become a route for through traffic and is increasing already from vehicles from the new A127 development.
3) I am a resident in Bishop Walk which is a quiet close with 6 residential homes on both sides with off road parking with open views to natural landscapes. Were this proposal to be granted it would drastically change the aspect of the area and the new properties would be close to existing boundaries and overlook the existing residential dwellings. The proposed site access shows as being Priests Lane and a potential for a secondary access via Bishop Walk. Using Bishop Walk would be UNFAIR and totally UNACCEPTBALE. Why would you first of all think of developing this particular site and then further turn a quiet close into an access to a large estate as part of it? It's madness.
4) Already we are seeing office blocks and those above shops being turned into housing which together with other developments will undoubtedly place further pressure on public services. How will doctor and dentist surgeries cope with so much additional demand as well as schools?
I wholeheartedly implore you to abandon your proposals for this site and not destroy the culture and outlook of this part of the Brentwood/Shenfield.

Priests Lane Development - Site Ref 044 and 178
I am writing in respect of the above proposals of the redevelopment of the land behind Priests Lane and strongly object on the following grounds:
1) The proposed development on the land would be detrimental to the current scene from our property. I understand that this site is the only greenfield site in the local plan which looks set on turning Brentwood/Shenfield into a concrete jungle - I am glad that Shenfield Common has not been included or will that follow in the future?
2) The proposed development would increase the traffic in Priest lane which is already very heavy during the morning & evening. Priests Lane, as the name suggests is a narrow winding lane which has already become a busy route and the possibility of a large increase to the regular vehicles using the lane together with private visitors and delivery trucks would make the congestion even worse. The lane does not have pavements on both sides along the full distance and I think it is dangerous enough already for the many joggers using the lane - adding more residents to the area would increase this problem. It is not only the addition of vehicles brought about by development of this site that would be problematic. There would be considerable added congestion and pollution from increased use of Priests Lane which has become a route for through traffic and is increasing already from vehicles from the new A127 development.
3) I am a resident in Bishop Walk which is a quiet close with 6 residential homes on both sides with off road parking with open views to natural landscapes. Were this proposal to be granted it would drastically change the aspect of the area and the new properties would be close to existing boundaries and overlook the existing residential dwellings. The proposed site access shows as being Priests Lane and a potential for a secondary access via Bishop Walk. Using Bishop Walk would be UNFAIR and totally UNACCEPTBALE. Why would you first of all think of developing this particular site and then further turn a quiet close into an access to a large estate as part of it? It's madness.
4) Already we are seeing office blocks and those above shops being turned into housing which together with other developments will undoubtedly place further pressure on public services. How will doctor and dentist surgeries cope with so much additional demand as well as schools?
I wholeheartedly implore you to abandon your proposals for this site and not destroy the culture and outlook of this part of the Brentwood/Shenfield.

Priests Lane Development - Site Ref 044 and 178
I am writing in respect of the above proposals of the redevelopment of the land behind Priests Lane and strongly object on the following grounds:
1) The proposed development on the land would be detrimental to the current scene from our property. I understand that this site is the only greenfield site in the local plan which looks set on turning Brentwood/Shenfield into a concrete jungle - I am glad that Shenfield Common has not been included or will that follow in the future?
2) The proposed development would increase the traffic in Priest lane which is already very heavy during the morning & evening. Priests Lane, as the name suggests is a narrow winding lane which has already become a busy route and the possibility of a large increase to the regular vehicles using the lane together with private visitors and delivery trucks would make the congestion even worse. The lane does not have pavements on both sides along the full distance and I think it is dangerous enough already for the many joggers using the lane - adding more residents to the area would increase this problem. It is not only the addition of vehicles brought about by development of this site that would be problematic. There would be considerable added congestion and pollution from increased use of Priests Lane which has become a route for through traffic and is increasing already from vehicles from the new A127 development.
3) I am a resident in Bishop Walk which is a quiet close with 6 residential homes on both sides with off road parking with open views to natural landscapes. Were this proposal to be granted it would drastically change the aspect of the area and the new properties would be close to existing boundaries and overlook the existing residential dwellings. The proposed site access shows as being Priests Lane and a potential for a secondary access via Bishop Walk. Using Bishop Walk would be UNFAIR and totally UNACCEPTBALE. Why would you first of all think of developing this particular site and then further turn a quiet close into an access to a large estate as part of it? It's madness.
4) Already we are seeing office blocks and those above shops being turned into housing which together with other developments will undoubtedly place further pressure on public services. How will doctor and dentist surgeries cope with so much additional demand as well as schools?
I wholeheartedly implore you to abandon your proposals for this site and not destroy the culture and outlook of this part of the Brentwood/Shenfield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I write with particular regard to the proposals for site references 186, 311 044, 178, 034, 087,235, 276, 158 and 263 in the Shenfield area.
The proposed density for these developments will have an adverse impact on the local communities and amenities.
. Traffic in the local area is already very heavy, particularly during school run times and these proposals will only add to the congestion
. Local schools, doctors and hospital services are already struggling to meet demand and would not be able to accommodate these additional numbers
. Likewise, bus and train services are already very busy and will not be able to meet demand. Crossrail will not alleviate this congestion.
. All of these will have an detrimental impact to the local community and the well being of local residents and on the surrounding areas.
I have been a local resident for almost 20 years and during that time, the traffic has increased dramatically with the amount of development that has taken place already.
Serious consideration should be given to scaling back these proposals and decreasing the number of dwellings proposed.

I write with particular regard to the proposals for site references 186, 311 044, 178, 034, 087,235, 276, 158 and 263 in the Shenfield area.
The proposed density for these developments will have an adverse impact on the local communities and amenities.
. Traffic in the local area is already very heavy, particularly during school run times and these proposals will only add to the congestion
. Local schools, doctors and hospital services are already struggling to meet demand and would not be able to accommodate these additional numbers
. Likewise, bus and train services are already very busy and will not be able to meet demand. Crossrail will not alleviate this congestion.
. All of these will have an detrimental impact to the local community and the well being of local residents and on the surrounding areas.
I have been a local resident for almost 20 years and during that time, the traffic has increased dramatically with the amount of development that has taken place already.
Serious consideration should be given to scaling back these proposals and decreasing the number of dwellings proposed.

I write with particular regard to the proposals for site references 186, 311 044, 178, 034, 087,235, 276, 158 and 263 in the Shenfield area.
The proposed density for these developments will have an adverse impact on the local communities and amenities.
. Traffic in the local area is already very heavy, particularly during school run times and these proposals will only add to the congestion
. Local schools, doctors and hospital services are already struggling to meet demand and would not be able to accommodate these additional numbers
. Likewise, bus and train services are already very busy and will not be able to meet demand. Crossrail will not alleviate this congestion.
. All of these will have an detrimental impact to the local community and the well being of local residents and on the surrounding areas.
I have been a local resident for almost 20 years and during that time, the traffic has increased dramatically with the amount of development that has taken place already.
Serious consideration should be given to scaling back these proposals and decreasing the number of dwellings proposed.

I write with particular regard to the proposals for site references 186, 311 044, 178, 034, 087,235, 276, 158 and 263 in the Shenfield area.
The proposed density for these developments will have an adverse impact on the local communities and amenities.
. Traffic in the local area is already very heavy, particularly during school run times and these proposals will only add to the congestion
. Local schools, doctors and hospital services are already struggling to meet demand and would not be able to accommodate these additional numbers
. Likewise, bus and train services are already very busy and will not be able to meet demand. Crossrail will not alleviate this congestion.
. All of these will have an detrimental impact to the local community and the well being of local residents and on the surrounding areas.
I have been a local resident for almost 20 years and during that time, the traffic has increased dramatically with the amount of development that has taken place already.
Serious consideration should be given to scaling back these proposals and decreasing the number of dwellings proposed.

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.

I object to the planned development of this site primarily due to the increase in traffic. Priests Lane is already a very busy road, with narrow lanes and paths.

Firstly, when my children walk down the road each day to school, I fear for their safety. Most of the path along Priests Lane is very narrow and only suitable for people to walk single file, even though children often walk in pairs.

The danger is exacerbated by the speed of the traffic along the road, which often exceeds the speed limit.

Secondly, the road is very narrow at both ends, near Shenfield Common and the entrance to Woodway. It is often not possible for cars to pass each other at the narrowest points.

The planned development would result in an increase in traffic during construction, which would cause danger and chaos for the duration of the build. Once completed, the increase in traffic with ~100 more houses would continue to significantly and unacceptably increase the danger in this road for both pedestrians and drivers.

I have further concerns regarding:

* the ability of the local amenities to cope with an increase in local residents, e.g. doctors, schools and public transport
* noise pollution
* devaluing the existing houses and making Shenfield a less attractive place to live

I object to the planned development of this site primarily due to the increase in traffic. Priests Lane is already a very busy road, with narrow lanes and paths.

Firstly, when my children walk down the road each day to school, I fear for their safety. Most of the path along Priests Lane is very narrow and only suitable for people to walk single file, even though children often walk in pairs.

The danger is exacerbated by the speed of the traffic along the road, which often exceeds the speed limit.

Secondly, the road is very narrow at both ends, near Shenfield Common and the entrance to Woodway. It is often not possible for cars to pass each other at the narrowest points.

The planned development would result in an increase in traffic during construction, which would cause danger and chaos for the duration of the build. Once completed, the increase in traffic with ~100 more houses would continue to significantly and unacceptably increase the danger in this road for both pedestrians and drivers.

I have further concerns regarding:

* the ability of the local amenities to cope with an increase in local residents, e.g. doctors, schools and public transport
* noise pollution
* devaluing the existing houses and making Shenfield a less attractive place to live

I am writing to raise my concern regarding building more houses in Priests Lane.
The area is already overcrowded, Priests Lane traffic is already saturated. I live in (address). The traffic is horrendous especially school time. I am a GP and the surrounding surgeries are already not coping. I wounder who make these decisions to deteriorate the area even more!!! Any one from the council thought about the pollution that these proposed new development will bring!! I am 100 percent objecting to the new development around Priests Lane.

Dear local planning committee
As a local resistant of Priests Lane on behalf of my family i would like to voice our strong objection to the proposal of new housing on the site off of Priests Lane. I have lived on the road for over 20 years and have experienced first hand the significant increase in traffic and crime in recent years. If there are long queues of traffic from Middleton Hall Road (frequent car accidents) then motorists take the opportunity to speed down what used to be a nice local road, plus the local burglaries. Further housing would not bring any benefit to the area, simply drive local residents away.

In just the past two days, traffic in the mornings as run from Middleton Hall lane, down Priests Lane to Bishops Walk and then from Shenfield Common down to near the A127. How on earth could you possibly consider adding 95 further houses to this, it simply isn't feasible for those living locally or those already commuting into the area?
There are not the resources locally to cope with further housing, and the recent attempts by the local council to repair the road and pavements are evident that by using a cheap contractor the road surface is so poor you can already see the original tarmac in parts. It's terrible that these attempts to correct what should have been done over the years are now only being done to pave the way for the development. The local doctors surgeries cannot cope now how can they possibly take on more, our local schools are stretched and class numbers on the increase how can they accommodate more pupils.
For the sake of our local area, please consider the local residents before being swayed by the developers money which will destroy our community, how we live, commute and work in the area.
Thank you in advance for at the very least logging this as a family strongly against this development.

Dear local planning committee
As a local resistant of Priests Lane on behalf of my family i would like to voice our strong objection to the proposal of new housing on the site off of Priests Lane. I have lived on the road for over 20 years and have experienced first hand the significant increase in traffic and crime in recent years. If there are long queues of traffic from Middleton Hall Road (frequent car accidents) then motorists take the opportunity to speed down what used to be a nice local road, plus the local burglaries. Further housing would not bring any benefit to the area, simply drive local residents away.

In just the past two days, traffic in the mornings as run from Middleton Hall lane, down Priests Lane to Bishops Walk and then from Shenfield Common down to near the A127. How on earth could you possibly consider adding 95 further houses to this, it simply isn't feasible for those living locally or those already commuting into the area?
There are not the resources locally to cope with further housing, and the recent attempts by the local council to repair the road and pavements are evident that by using a cheap contractor the road surface is so poor you can already see the original tarmac in parts. It's terrible that these attempts to correct what should have been done over the years are now only being done to pave the way for the development. The local doctors surgeries cannot cope now how can they possibly take on more, our local schools are stretched and class numbers on the increase how can they accommodate more pupils.
For the sake of our local area, please consider the local residents before being swayed by the developers money which will destroy our community, how we live, commute and work in the area.
Thank you in advance for at the very least logging this as a family strongly against this development.

I am very concerned about the proposed development of 95 homes
On the above greenfield site.
Priests lane at certain times of day is now completely blocked by traffic
With the additional traffic it will be impossible.
At present we are waiting 2/3 weeks for an appointment at our surgery
(The new surgery Brentwood) how will our surgeries cope with additional demand?
I very strongly object to this development , There are no plans for the traffic bottlenecks
No plans for additional Surgeries, No plans for additional school places.

I am writing with my objections to the above mentioned proposal for development on this greenfield site. The current situation in regards to traffic and pollution along Priests Lane I'm sure is well documented.

With increased building and development of sites pouch as Officers Meadow, conversion of the old Town Hall plus several smaller but additional sites especially since the introduction of Crossrail I cannot see the sense nor the benefit of such a development. The significant increase in traffic and pollution especially at peak times will have a major environmental and safety impact on the surrounding roads.
Priests Lane is sadly a major link already for many people including the new houses to the A127 and also to the A12. This will only seek to further exacerbate the problem.
I experience on a daily basis the mayhem at peak times at the pollution hotspot of Ingrave Road, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Road.

I am also extremely concerned as to where the access for such a development would be sited. The entrance onto Priests Lane from St. Andrews Place is already a dangerous bend. Cars are often seen to cut off the corner just before St Andrews coming in from Middleton Hall end. Again, I have experienced this hazard on a daily basis with damage having been received to my car rhs wing mirror. I can provide evidence.

Also, it is my understanding that the current schools, surgeries and other amenities are meant to cope with this additional demand. My experience for both attendance and parking to these amenities shows that this is already at breaking point.
To be clear, if this proposal is to move forward I would be extremely concerned for the safety, health and well-being of residents in the surrounding area of Priests Lane.

I do not believe that the council is really listening to residents and is forging ahead regardless. Therefore could you please confirm that you are in receipt of this email objection and that due consideration will be taken of the points raised in my letter.

I am writing with my objections to the above mentioned proposal for development on this greenfield site. The current situation in regards to traffic and pollution along Priests Lane I'm sure is well documented.

With increased building and development of sites pouch as Officers Meadow, conversion of the old Town Hall plus several smaller but additional sites especially since the introduction of Crossrail I cannot see the sense nor the benefit of such a development. The significant increase in traffic and pollution especially at peak times will have a major environmental and safety impact on the surrounding roads.
Priests Lane is sadly a major link already for many people including the new houses to the A127 and also to the A12. This will only seek to further exacerbate the problem.
I experience on a daily basis the mayhem at peak times at the pollution hotspot of Ingrave Road, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Road.

I am also extremely concerned as to where the access for such a development would be sited. The entrance onto Priests Lane from St. Andrews Place is already a dangerous bend. Cars are often seen to cut off the corner just before St Andrews coming in from Middleton Hall end. Again, I have experienced this hazard on a daily basis with damage having been received to my car rhs wing mirror. I can provide evidence.

Also, it is my understanding that the current schools, surgeries and other amenities are meant to cope with this additional demand. My experience for both attendance and parking to these amenities shows that this is already at breaking point.
To be clear, if this proposal is to move forward I would be extremely concerned for the safety, health and well-being of residents in the surrounding area of Priests Lane.

I do not believe that the council is really listening to residents and is forging ahead regardless. Therefore could you please confirm that you are in receipt of this email objection and that due consideration will be taken of the points raised in my letter.

I am writing with my objections to the above mentioned proposal for development on this greenfield site. The current situation in regards to traffic and pollution along Priests Lane I'm sure is well documented.

With increased building and development of sites pouch as Officers Meadow, conversion of the old Town Hall plus several smaller but additional sites especially since the introduction of Crossrail I cannot see the sense nor the benefit of such a development. The significant increase in traffic and pollution especially at peak times will have a major environmental and safety impact on the surrounding roads.
Priests Lane is sadly a major link already for many people including the new houses to the A127 and also to the A12. This will only seek to further exacerbate the problem.
I experience on a daily basis the mayhem at peak times at the pollution hotspot of Ingrave Road, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Road.

I am also extremely concerned as to where the access for such a development would be sited. The entrance onto Priests Lane from St. Andrews Place is already a dangerous bend. Cars are often seen to cut off the corner just before St Andrews coming in from Middleton Hall end. Again, I have experienced this hazard on a daily basis with damage having been received to my car rhs wing mirror. I can provide evidence.

Also, it is my understanding that the current schools, surgeries and other amenities are meant to cope with this additional demand. My experience for both attendance and parking to these amenities shows that this is already at breaking point.
To be clear, if this proposal is to move forward I would be extremely concerned for the safety, health and well-being of residents in the surrounding area of Priests Lane.

I do not believe that the council is really listening to residents and is forging ahead regardless. Therefore could you please confirm that you are in receipt of this email objection and that due consideration will be taken of the points raised in my letter.

I write to object to the proposed development of the area adjacent to Priests Lane. The road is already too busy and the Council has failed over many years to control traffic flow or speed. Adding more homes will increase traffic levels and congestion.
The junction at the top of the road already sees queues every morning and evening which creates loss of time and endangers children attending the local schools.
I would add, as a general point that our local surgeries, schools and roads have difficulty managing with current numbers, let alone adding more.
Priests Lane is a narrow road with narrow pavements. This development will endanger life.