The Draft Local Plan sets out 'the spatial strategy continues to focus upon the
sequential use of land, which prioritises using brownfield first', but the Priests Lane
site is greenfield land and is the only greenfield site proposed in the plan. In SO5: 'Manage development growth to that capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure, services and facilities.' Development of the Priests Lane site would add 1,000 houses in the Shenfield area, increasing congestion at the junction of Priests Lane/Middleton Hall Lane. It would also increase demand for surgeries within the Shenfield area. In SO22: 'Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors.' It is already terribly difficult and dangerous to cycle along Priests Lane, with very restricted space for vehicles and extremely narrow pavement for pedestrians. More vehicles from the new development would only exacerbate the current situation. Additional vehicles will increase air and noise pollution in the area.

My objection is based on the following concerns:
- Traffic on Priests Lane is already high. The corner by St Andrews Place is particularly dangerous and will only be made worse by increased traffic. Traffic in the rush hour is ridiculous - it has taken me 45 minutes to get to Sainsburys before
- Lack of provisions. It already takes 2 weeks to get a doctors appointment
- This is greenfield

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

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

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.

Brentwood cannot cope at peak times with the traffic it already has. Similarly, parking is already a problem in and around the town, both in Brentwood and in Shenfield.

Crescent drive, on a school day morning is a solid traffic jam from London road to Middleton road, putting 55 family houses with multiple cars on top of that, when people need to get to the hospital is madness.

Priests lane has a similar issue and the local area cannot sustain this many houses, people or cars.

Despite being a wealthy council, money seems not to be spent where necessary, for example I am a wheelchair user and cannot get to the end of my road unaided due to the massive potholes in the pavement.

7000 homes over 5 years in the Brentwood and Shenfield area is insanity.

With regards to the above proposal I am contacting you to share my concerns:-

- Priests Lane is a greenfield site

- other local developments will significantly increase traffic on all surrounding roads at peak times

- There is already a bottleneck at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane - new houses will make this problem worse

- Priests Lane is narrow and there is no pavement on one side so it is unsuitable for more traffic

- Additional vehicles would increase pollution at the Ingrave Road/Priests Lane/Middleton Hall lane junction

- Additional vehicles would mean increased traffic in Shenfield Crescent which is already gridlocked at school times

This planning proposal seems, as usual, to not have been properly or carefully thought in with regard to it's impact on the local community.
The Priests Lane are of Shenfield is already suffering from a huge amount of traffic congestion, particularly at the junction with Middleton Hall Lane. This proposal will increase that congestion many times over and result in unacceptable traffic levels there and on other minor roads nearby, such as Worrin Road.
With the increase in traffic levels will also come a significant increase in both air and noise pollution throughout the Shenfield area and with this in mind it is worth noting that there are schools such as Hogarth's and Brentwood County High in the near vicinity where young children may be affected.
Mentioning schools it also needs pointing out that an additional one thousand houses in the locality is going to put severe and unsustainable strain on the existing local infrastructure. Schools and doctor's surgeries, struggling already to cope with demand, will be unable to cope with yet further demand on their services.
It does appear that, with this being the only greenfield site in the development plan, the Planning Policy Team have already made up their mind on this matter but that makes it even more important that local residents of Shenfield like myself and my family make a point of registering our objection to this ill thought out plan. Above all else, our existing greenfield sites should be protected at all costs.

This planning proposal seems, as usual, to not have been properly or carefully thought in with regard to it's impact on the local community.
The Priests Lane are of Shenfield is already suffering from a huge amount of traffic congestion, particularly at the junction with Middleton Hall Lane. This proposal will increase that congestion many times over and result in unacceptable traffic levels there and on other minor roads nearby, such as Worrin Road.
With the increase in traffic levels will also come a significant increase in both air and noise pollution throughout the Shenfield area and with this in mind it is worth noting that there are schools such as Hogarth's and Brentwood County High in the near vicinity where young children may be affected.
Mentioning schools it also needs pointing out that an additional one thousand houses in the locality is going to put severe and unsustainable strain on the existing local infrastructure. Schools and doctor's surgeries, struggling already to cope with demand, will be unable to cope with yet further demand on their services.
It does appear that, with this being the only greenfield site in the development plan, the Planning Policy Team have already made up their mind on this matter but that makes it even more important that local residents of Shenfield like myself and my family make a point of registering our objection to this ill thought out plan. Above all else, our existing greenfield sites should be protected at all costs.

This planning proposal seems, as usual, to not have been properly or carefully thought in with regard to it's impact on the local community.
The Priests Lane are of Shenfield is already suffering from a huge amount of traffic congestion, particularly at the junction with Middleton Hall Lane. This proposal will increase that congestion many times over and result in unacceptable traffic levels there and on other minor roads nearby, such as Worrin Road.
With the increase in traffic levels will also come a significant increase in both air and noise pollution throughout the Shenfield area and with this in mind it is worth noting that there are schools such as Hogarth's and Brentwood County High in the near vicinity where young children may be affected.
Mentioning schools it also needs pointing out that an additional one thousand houses in the locality is going to put severe and unsustainable strain on the existing local infrastructure. Schools and doctor's surgeries, struggling already to cope with demand, will be unable to cope with yet further demand on their services.
It does appear that, with this being the only greenfield site in the development plan, the Planning Policy Team have already made up their mind on this matter but that makes it even more important that local residents of Shenfield like myself and my family make a point of registering our objection to this ill thought out plan. Above all else, our existing greenfield sites should be protected at all costs.

I am writing to extend my total objection to the building of 95 new homes in Priests Lane. My concerns are as follows: This is a greenfield site and should not be built on. This plan will mean an increase to the already current congestion problems and bottleneck at the junction with PriestsLane and Middleton Hall Lane. Additional vehicles will bring yet more pollution, in this already polluted area. How will this large increase in residents be coped with by our already full schools and Doctors surgeries!

I object strongly to the development of these 2 sites on the following
grounds:
1 The traffic congestion in Priest Lane is so bad that it makes it
difficult for cars to exit from my cul-de-sac as the queue goes
beyond my road. It's quicker to walk than drive to work in the High
St, only drawback is that I suffer from chronic condition which is
exacerbated by traffic noise and fumes from the queue of cars. It is
dangerous to cross Priest Lane as it's so busy, narrow and winding
but you have no choice if you live on side without footpath! The
footpaths are narrow, uneven and peppered with potholes which
has caused me to fall more than once! Despite my complaints,
ECC has declared that they are not bad enough to warrant repair!
It's no wonder that over the 20 years I've lived here, the number of
school children that walk this route have dwindled and are
choosing to go by car, creating a vicious circle of more traffic and
pollution. This development will only increase both cars and
pedestrian traffic to what is historically meant to be a lane. Despite
highlighting concerns in last year's LDP, the 2018 revised plan not
only does not address any of these health and safety issues, but
proposes site access from Bishop Walk that the Highways Agency
had previously raised concerns about traffic safety during the
planning application more than 20 years ago when Priests Lane
was quieter!
2 This Protected Open Urban Space is a vital green lung in
absorbing the pollution on the adjacent roads and Crossrail and is
used by a wide range of birdlife, including pheasant, muntjac deer,
badger, foxes, shrews and rabbit and the wildflower meadow
attracts butterflies It is a green corridor espoused in the LDP yet
are happy to see it destroyed forever by development.
3 Access by emergency services would be further restricted with
knock-on effects on health and crime.
4. There are no plans on matching the increases in housing with
increase in GPs given that local surgeries are struggling now at
maximum capacity.
5. Priests Lane is often blighted by repairs from gas leaks and heavy
construction lorries will only damage the already fragile network of
pipes beneath the road.
6. Although it borders Hogarth School, no land has been set aside to
replace the playing fields lost to last year's extension of the school
to accommodate current needs and tackle the childhood obesity
crisis in UK or even to allow future expansion of the school to
serve the increased population of the many allocation sites in the
LDP.
Despite the high level of objections to these sites, the council have
even removed their previous recommendation to keep part of the
land for open spaces available to the community, at the behest of
one of the landowners which shows staggering disregard for
democracy. This together with unavailability of evidence pertaining
to this site from the Highways survey makes this consultation a
farce and waste of taxpayer's money.

I object strongly to the development of these 2 sites on the following
grounds:
1 The traffic congestion in Priest Lane is so bad that it makes it
difficult for cars to exit from my cul-de-sac as the queue goes
beyond my road. It's quicker to walk than drive to work in the High
St, only drawback is that I suffer from chronic condition which is
exacerbated by traffic noise and fumes from the queue of cars. It is
dangerous to cross Priest Lane as it's so busy, narrow and winding
but you have no choice if you live on side without footpath! The
footpaths are narrow, uneven and peppered with potholes which
has caused me to fall more than once! Despite my complaints,
ECC has declared that they are not bad enough to warrant repair!
It's no wonder that over the 20 years I've lived here, the number of
school children that walk this route have dwindled and are
choosing to go by car, creating a vicious circle of more traffic and
pollution. This development will only increase both cars and
pedestrian traffic to what is historically meant to be a lane. Despite
highlighting concerns in last year's LDP, the 2018 revised plan not
only does not address any of these health and safety issues, but
proposes site access from Bishop Walk that the Highways Agency
had previously raised concerns about traffic safety during the
planning application more than 20 years ago when Priests Lane
was quieter!
2 This Protected Open Urban Space is a vital green lung in
absorbing the pollution on the adjacent roads and Crossrail and is
used by a wide range of birdlife, including pheasant, muntjac deer,
badger, foxes, shrews and rabbit and the wildflower meadow
attracts butterflies It is a green corridor espoused in the LDP yet
are happy to see it destroyed forever by development.
3 Access by emergency services would be further restricted with
knock-on effects on health and crime.
4. There are no plans on matching the increases in housing with
increase in GPs given that local surgeries are struggling now at
maximum capacity.
5. Priests Lane is often blighted by repairs from gas leaks and heavy
construction lorries will only damage the already fragile network of
pipes beneath the road.
6. Although it borders Hogarth School, no land has been set aside to
replace the playing fields lost to last year's extension of the school
to accommodate current needs and tackle the childhood obesity
crisis in UK or even to allow future expansion of the school to
serve the increased population of the many allocation sites in the
LDP.
Despite the high level of objections to these sites, the council have
even removed their previous recommendation to keep part of the
land for open spaces available to the community, at the behest of
one of the landowners which shows staggering disregard for
democracy. This together with unavailability of evidence pertaining
to this site from the Highways survey makes this consultation a
farce and waste of taxpayer's money.

I object strongly to the development of these 2 sites on the following
grounds:
1 The traffic congestion in Priest Lane is so bad that it makes it
difficult for cars to exit from my cul-de-sac as the queue goes
beyond my road. It's quicker to walk than drive to work in the High
St, only drawback is that I suffer from chronic condition which is
exacerbated by traffic noise and fumes from the queue of cars. It is
dangerous to cross Priest Lane as it's so busy, narrow and winding
but you have no choice if you live on side without footpath! The
footpaths are narrow, uneven and peppered with potholes which
has caused me to fall more than once! Despite my complaints,
ECC has declared that they are not bad enough to warrant repair!
It's no wonder that over the 20 years I've lived here, the number of
school children that walk this route have dwindled and are
choosing to go by car, creating a vicious circle of more traffic and
pollution. This development will only increase both cars and
pedestrian traffic to what is historically meant to be a lane. Despite
highlighting concerns in last year's LDP, the 2018 revised plan not
only does not address any of these health and safety issues, but
proposes site access from Bishop Walk that the Highways Agency
had previously raised concerns about traffic safety during the
planning application more than 20 years ago when Priests Lane
was quieter!
2 This Protected Open Urban Space is a vital green lung in
absorbing the pollution on the adjacent roads and Crossrail and is
used by a wide range of birdlife, including pheasant, muntjac deer,
badger, foxes, shrews and rabbit and the wildflower meadow
attracts butterflies It is a green corridor espoused in the LDP yet
are happy to see it destroyed forever by development.
3 Access by emergency services would be further restricted with
knock-on effects on health and crime.
4. There are no plans on matching the increases in housing with
increase in GPs given that local surgeries are struggling now at
maximum capacity.
5. Priests Lane is often blighted by repairs from gas leaks and heavy
construction lorries will only damage the already fragile network of
pipes beneath the road.
6. Although it borders Hogarth School, no land has been set aside to
replace the playing fields lost to last year's extension of the school
to accommodate current needs and tackle the childhood obesity
crisis in UK or even to allow future expansion of the school to
serve the increased population of the many allocation sites in the
LDP.
Despite the high level of objections to these sites, the council have
even removed their previous recommendation to keep part of the
land for open spaces available to the community, at the behest of
one of the landowners which shows staggering disregard for
democracy. This together with unavailability of evidence pertaining
to this site from the Highways survey makes this consultation a
farce and waste of taxpayer's money.

Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 044/178 - Priests Lane,
Brentwood, on the following grounds:
1. Last year Hogarth primary school not only had its car park but also its buildings
significantly extended onto its playing field. This serves to double the school's
pupil numbers at the expense of halving its playing field. The Priests Lane sites
are the only open land adjoining the two schools of Hogarth Primary and The
Endeavour. Developing these sites will involve the permanent loss of land last
used as playing fields and deny the schools the opportunity to not only replace
their lost playing field space but also to provide for future extension. Building on
these sites is contrary to the Government's priority on physical education to
address the obesity and mental health needs of our children and future
generations, thereby reducing the burden of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease and dementia in our community.
2. In addition to the need for local school playing fields, this site may offer
potential for meeting community playing field needs. The loss of this site would be
contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy
on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
3. Access for this development is suggested via Bishop Walk and yet, following
concern by the Highways Agency over 22 years ago during the planning
application, the number of houses in Bishop Walk was reduced from 8 to 5 on the
grounds of safety, even though traffic was less then. How can it now be justified,
with the increased traffic, to allow increase of not just three houses but ninety-five!
4. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level and added to by
the doubling of pupils to Hogarth Primary School. This will be exacerbated with
the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priests Lane with its single
narrow footpath limited to one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school
children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development
would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way
beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists
and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks.
Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the
area and is irresponsible. Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the
distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars.
5. Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood
and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127, A128 and
the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating
narrow footpaths and does not meet many national highway criteria nor
acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will
only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood
developments and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is not suited to serve any
increased traffic levels.
6. These sites only provide for the smallest proportion (1.15%) of homes in the
local plan and even then the high density of 95 dwellings on this site, as stated in
the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. This once
more will result in serious detriment to the area and should be accommodated
where it is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of
town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate
infrastructure, pedestrian/cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk
roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential
areas, such as Priests Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.
7. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the Anglia
Region, to which the addition of the London Crossrail Scheme is imminent. Such
land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise,
pollution and safety.
8. Access by emergency services would be further restricted by the added
congestion with concomitant effects on health, property and crime.
9. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this
development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area
cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the
neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.
10. Our concerns demonstrate how the LP proposal for Priests Lane is not only
unfeasible but contravenes Government and the Council's own standards as well
as those of Sport England and disregards the needs of neighbouring schools.
Despite this the Council has neither responded to our concerns nor those of the
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association and yet readily responded to
the land owner's comments requesting removal from the 2016 LDP of the
recommendation to keep part of the land open and available for community use.
This consultation process gives the impression of just following required planning
procedure without giving due consideration to official standards or residents'
concerns? Will our justified concerns continue to be ignored this time round?

Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 044/178 - Priests Lane,
Brentwood, on the following grounds:
1. Last year Hogarth primary school not only had its car park but also its buildings
significantly extended onto its playing field. This serves to double the school's
pupil numbers at the expense of halving its playing field. The Priests Lane sites
are the only open land adjoining the two schools of Hogarth Primary and The
Endeavour. Developing these sites will involve the permanent loss of land last
used as playing fields and deny the schools the opportunity to not only replace
their lost playing field space but also to provide for future extension. Building on
these sites is contrary to the Government's priority on physical education to
address the obesity and mental health needs of our children and future
generations, thereby reducing the burden of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease and dementia in our community.
2. In addition to the need for local school playing fields, this site may offer
potential for meeting community playing field needs. The loss of this site would be
contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy
on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
3. Access for this development is suggested via Bishop Walk and yet, following
concern by the Highways Agency over 22 years ago during the planning
application, the number of houses in Bishop Walk was reduced from 8 to 5 on the
grounds of safety, even though traffic was less then. How can it now be justified,
with the increased traffic, to allow increase of not just three houses but ninety-five!
4. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level and added to by
the doubling of pupils to Hogarth Primary School. This will be exacerbated with
the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priests Lane with its single
narrow footpath limited to one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school
children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development
would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way
beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists
and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks.
Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the
area and is irresponsible. Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the
distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars.
5. Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood
and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127, A128 and
the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating
narrow footpaths and does not meet many national highway criteria nor
acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will
only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood
developments and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is not suited to serve any
increased traffic levels.
6. These sites only provide for the smallest proportion (1.15%) of homes in the
local plan and even then the high density of 95 dwellings on this site, as stated in
the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. This once
more will result in serious detriment to the area and should be accommodated
where it is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of
town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate
infrastructure, pedestrian/cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk
roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential
areas, such as Priests Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.
7. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the Anglia
Region, to which the addition of the London Crossrail Scheme is imminent. Such
land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise,
pollution and safety.
8. Access by emergency services would be further restricted by the added
congestion with concomitant effects on health, property and crime.
9. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this
development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area
cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the
neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.
10. Our concerns demonstrate how the LP proposal for Priests Lane is not only
unfeasible but contravenes Government and the Council's own standards as well
as those of Sport England and disregards the needs of neighbouring schools.
Despite this the Council has neither responded to our concerns nor those of the
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association and yet readily responded to
the land owner's comments requesting removal from the 2016 LDP of the
recommendation to keep part of the land open and available for community use.
This consultation process gives the impression of just following required planning
procedure without giving due consideration to official standards or residents'
concerns? Will our justified concerns continue to be ignored this time round?

Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 044/178 - Priests Lane,
Brentwood, on the following grounds:
1. Last year Hogarth primary school not only had its car park but also its buildings
significantly extended onto its playing field. This serves to double the school's
pupil numbers at the expense of halving its playing field. The Priests Lane sites
are the only open land adjoining the two schools of Hogarth Primary and The
Endeavour. Developing these sites will involve the permanent loss of land last
used as playing fields and deny the schools the opportunity to not only replace
their lost playing field space but also to provide for future extension. Building on
these sites is contrary to the Government's priority on physical education to
address the obesity and mental health needs of our children and future
generations, thereby reducing the burden of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease and dementia in our community.
2. In addition to the need for local school playing fields, this site may offer
potential for meeting community playing field needs. The loss of this site would be
contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy
on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
3. Access for this development is suggested via Bishop Walk and yet, following
concern by the Highways Agency over 22 years ago during the planning
application, the number of houses in Bishop Walk was reduced from 8 to 5 on the
grounds of safety, even though traffic was less then. How can it now be justified,
with the increased traffic, to allow increase of not just three houses but ninety-five!
4. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level and added to by
the doubling of pupils to Hogarth Primary School. This will be exacerbated with
the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priests Lane with its single
narrow footpath limited to one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school
children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development
would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way
beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists
and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks.
Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the
area and is irresponsible. Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the
distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars.
5. Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood
and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127, A128 and
the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating
narrow footpaths and does not meet many national highway criteria nor
acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will
only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood
developments and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is not suited to serve any
increased traffic levels.
6. These sites only provide for the smallest proportion (1.15%) of homes in the
local plan and even then the high density of 95 dwellings on this site, as stated in
the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. This once
more will result in serious detriment to the area and should be accommodated
where it is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of
town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate
infrastructure, pedestrian/cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk
roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential
areas, such as Priests Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.
7. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the Anglia
Region, to which the addition of the London Crossrail Scheme is imminent. Such
land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise,
pollution and safety.
8. Access by emergency services would be further restricted by the added
congestion with concomitant effects on health, property and crime.
9. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this
development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area
cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the
neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.
10. Our concerns demonstrate how the LP proposal for Priests Lane is not only
unfeasible but contravenes Government and the Council's own standards as well
as those of Sport England and disregards the needs of neighbouring schools.
Despite this the Council has neither responded to our concerns nor those of the
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association and yet readily responded to
the land owner's comments requesting removal from the 2016 LDP of the
recommendation to keep part of the land open and available for community use.
This consultation process gives the impression of just following required planning
procedure without giving due consideration to official standards or residents'
concerns? Will our justified concerns continue to be ignored this time round?

Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 044/178 - Priests Lane,
Brentwood, on the following grounds:
1. Last year Hogarth primary school not only had its car park but also its buildings
significantly extended onto its playing field. This serves to double the school's
pupil numbers at the expense of halving its playing field. The Priests Lane sites
are the only open land adjoining the two schools of Hogarth Primary and The
Endeavour. Developing these sites will involve the permanent loss of land last
used as playing fields and deny the schools the opportunity to not only replace
their lost playing field space but also to provide for future extension. Building on
these sites is contrary to the Government's priority on physical education to
address the obesity and mental health needs of our children and future
generations, thereby reducing the burden of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease and dementia in our community.
2. In addition to the need for local school playing fields, this site may offer
potential for meeting community playing field needs. The loss of this site would be
contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy
on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
3. Access for this development is suggested via Bishop Walk and yet, following
concern by the Highways Agency over 22 years ago during the planning
application, the number of houses in Bishop Walk was reduced from 8 to 5 on the
grounds of safety, even though traffic was less then. How can it now be justified,
with the increased traffic, to allow increase of not just three houses but ninety-five!
4. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level and added to by
the doubling of pupils to Hogarth Primary School. This will be exacerbated with
the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priests Lane with its single
narrow footpath limited to one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school
children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development
would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way
beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists
and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks.
Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the
area and is irresponsible. Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the
distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars.
5. Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood
and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127, A128 and
the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating
narrow footpaths and does not meet many national highway criteria nor
acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will
only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood
developments and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is not suited to serve any
increased traffic levels.
6. These sites only provide for the smallest proportion (1.15%) of homes in the
local plan and even then the high density of 95 dwellings on this site, as stated in
the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. This once
more will result in serious detriment to the area and should be accommodated
where it is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of
town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate
infrastructure, pedestrian/cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk
roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential
areas, such as Priests Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.
7. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the Anglia
Region, to which the addition of the London Crossrail Scheme is imminent. Such
land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise,
pollution and safety.
8. Access by emergency services would be further restricted by the added
congestion with concomitant effects on health, property and crime.
9. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this
development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area
cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the
neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.
10. Our concerns demonstrate how the LP proposal for Priests Lane is not only
unfeasible but contravenes Government and the Council's own standards as well
as those of Sport England and disregards the needs of neighbouring schools.
Despite this the Council has neither responded to our concerns nor those of the
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association and yet readily responded to
the land owner's comments requesting removal from the 2016 LDP of the
recommendation to keep part of the land open and available for community use.
This consultation process gives the impression of just following required planning
procedure without giving due consideration to official standards or residents'
concerns? Will our justified concerns continue to be ignored this time round?

Objection is made to the proposed allocation of site 044/178 - Priests Lane,
Brentwood, on the following grounds:
1. Last year Hogarth primary school not only had its car park but also its buildings
significantly extended onto its playing field. This serves to double the school's
pupil numbers at the expense of halving its playing field. The Priests Lane sites
are the only open land adjoining the two schools of Hogarth Primary and The
Endeavour. Developing these sites will involve the permanent loss of land last
used as playing fields and deny the schools the opportunity to not only replace
their lost playing field space but also to provide for future extension. Building on
these sites is contrary to the Government's priority on physical education to
address the obesity and mental health needs of our children and future
generations, thereby reducing the burden of cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular
disease and dementia in our community.
2. In addition to the need for local school playing fields, this site may offer
potential for meeting community playing field needs. The loss of this site would be
contrary to Sport England's playing fields policy and Government planning policy
on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
3. Access for this development is suggested via Bishop Walk and yet, following
concern by the Highways Agency over 22 years ago during the planning
application, the number of houses in Bishop Walk was reduced from 8 to 5 on the
grounds of safety, even though traffic was less then. How can it now be justified,
with the increased traffic, to allow increase of not just three houses but ninety-five!
4. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level and added to by
the doubling of pupils to Hogarth Primary School. This will be exacerbated with
the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priests Lane with its single
narrow footpath limited to one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school
children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development
would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way
beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists
and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks.
Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the
area and is irresponsible. Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the
distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars.
5. Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood
and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127, A128 and
the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating
narrow footpaths and does not meet many national highway criteria nor
acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will
only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood
developments and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is not suited to serve any
increased traffic levels.
6. These sites only provide for the smallest proportion (1.15%) of homes in the
local plan and even then the high density of 95 dwellings on this site, as stated in
the plan, appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. This once
more will result in serious detriment to the area and should be accommodated
where it is more appropriate to locate such housing developments on edge of
town or out-of-town sites where provision can be made for adequate
infrastructure, pedestrian/cyclist routes and provide for new links to main trunk
roads, such as the A127 and A12. Not to add to already congested residential
areas, such as Priests Lane, where there is no space for these provisions.
7. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the Anglia
Region, to which the addition of the London Crossrail Scheme is imminent. Such
land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise,
pollution and safety.
8. Access by emergency services would be further restricted by the added
congestion with concomitant effects on health, property and crime.
9. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this
development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area
cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the
neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.
10. Our concerns demonstrate how the LP proposal for Priests Lane is not only
unfeasible but contravenes Government and the Council's own standards as well
as those of Sport England and disregards the needs of neighbouring schools.
Despite this the Council has neither responded to our concerns nor those of the
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association and yet readily responded to
the land owner's comments requesting removal from the 2016 LDP of the
recommendation to keep part of the land open and available for community use.
This consultation process gives the impression of just following required planning
procedure without giving due consideration to official standards or residents'
concerns? Will our justified concerns continue to be ignored this time round?

'Residents in Brentwood want to stay in the District and for their children to live nearby in the District. With superb infrastructure (Crossrail, Roads & Links, Schools, etc) air quality, the children want to stay in Brentwood District and for them to be able to use these services. Bearing the above in mind, wish New Homes to be built in the North of the District e.g. North of A12 Greenfield Sites, Pilgrims Hatch & Shenfield. Not in South of District which the Council considers Out of Area and means relying on Basildon's services. Please therefore, re-consider building the 2,500 + 1,000 New Homes in the North of the District which will then be for Brentwood Residents and keep families close together, in areas they want to live'.

I feel very strongly that you are proposing to build sufficient dwellings in the Shenfield area without having to build on greenfield site. It is the only greenfield site on the plan and most definitely should NOT be built on.

The extra 1,000 dwellings proposed in the Shenfield area will significantly increase traffic on all surrounding roads.

Priest Lane is a link that cars, lorries etc use to get to the A127 and M25. The amount of extra traffic from the new dwellings will mean an exacerbation of the current congestion problems as there is already a bottleneck at the junction of Priests Lane/ Middleton Hall Lane. Priests Lane is not wide enough in certain places for two 4x4's to pass which is already a danger to pedestrians attempting to walk on the pavement and a greater risk when pushing a buggy. More traffic is definitely not needed. It is supposed to be a LANE.

More vehicles will bring additional pollution to what is already a pollution hotspot.

You cannot get appointments at doctor surgeries at the moment so they will not be able to cope with such a large number of extra people. Also, local schools are oversubscribed and will reduce the opportunities for those who put them as a first choice school.

Our main concern with the proposed development is access to existing road structures. If access to Priests Lane is required where would the junction/join up occur. Both potential junctions Glanthams Road and St Andrews Place would require strict traffic control without which chaos, congestion and danger is going to happen on this narrow windy and busy "rat run" to Brentwood.
A safer option to consider would be access via Hogarth Avenue and the Endeavour School where there seems to be a much easier and more spacious land available.

Dear sir,

We are writing to ask you speak loudly in the council behalf of all residents surrounding areas, we strongly object to the proposed plan about the development, its very dangerous proposal, there will be lots of accidents, lots of people lived in danger, priest lane is too narrow, foot path is on single side, that's very narrow, Brentwood will be polluted. Last night in the residents meeting, everyone was very worried. Please sir look after the residents already there, they shouldn't be under pressure. Second thing is very important friendly environment. The most important point is that proposal site is green belt, illegal to build any houses . That land should be used for recreational ground, children should have playing field. Some of the grounds should be used for those two schools nearby, Hogarth school , special need school. Dear sir, we are requesting you to raid you voice in council behalf of all the residents, please save our l

I strongly object to the proposal to include sites 178 and 044 for the creation of dwellings in the local plan, on the following grounds:
1. The target of 95 dwellings on the two sites is far denser than the surrounding area and therefore not in keeping. Indeed it is difficult to see how such density can be achieved without including multi-storey blocks of flats.
2. An additional 95 households will bring a similar number of cars into the immediate area, adding to the existing congestion and pollution in what is an already crowded area. The junctions of Ingrave Road, Priests Land, Middleton Hall Lane and Shenfield Crescent are already regularly grid-locked at key school and commuting times. As a resident of Shenfield Crescent, I see the evidence from the effect of enlarging Hogarth School in that the queue of parked cars waiting to collect children now stretches almost to the bend near Priests Lane and creating difficulties for motorists trying to pass each other in opposite directions.
3. The options for site access are far from ideal, with both leading directly onto Priests Lane, only a few yards apart.

Housing Sites - Greenfield land within settlement boundaries; Land at Priests Lane, Shenfield - Site reference: 044 and 178. My concerns to the development of this site are on the following grounds: 1. Traffic congestion in the area is already at an intolerable level. This will be exacerbated with the associated danger and pollution along the narrow Priest's Lane with only a single narrow footpath on one side and being a main pedestrian conduit for school children and families leading to Brentwood schools and town. This development would add both vehicular and pedestrian traffic volume to this street network, way beyond its design and capability. The vulnerability already experienced by cyclists and pedestrians at busy periods will be compounded by the increased traffic risks. Such planning is not only dangerous but would result in serious detriment to the area and is irresponsible. 2. The two schools bordering this site have very little playing field space and these sites would provide the schools much needed expansion of sports facilities, in line with government policy. 3. This should be a Protected Open Space within the Metropolitan Green Belt and provides essential habitat for wildlife including a wide range of birdlife, deer and other fauna and flora. Such habitats maintain the balance of character associated with Brentwood and this loss would again result in serious detriment to the area. 4. Even to my layman's view the high density of dwellings appears way out of keeping with the character of the area. Once more resulting in serious detriment to the area. 5. The land concerned borders the busy main railway linking London to the east, which is soon to be added to by the London Crossrail Scheme. Such land should be allowed to provide a residential-free corridor for reasons of noise, pollution and safety. 6. Access by emergency services would be further restricted with concomitant effects on health and crime. 7. The dirt and atmospheric pollution associated with the construction of this development would be intolerable within the confines of the area. This area cannot absorb the construction traffic that will exceed the capability of the neighbouring street network and will cause an unacceptable level of danger.

Development of car parks:

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

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

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

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

Development of car parks:

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

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

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

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

I'd like to raise my objections to the proposed works of the development of 95 homes in Priests Lane.

I currently live in Worrin Road and the traffic every morning is horrendous getting into Brentwood, people constantly using Worrin Road as a cut through at ridiculous speeds. The pollution levels will rise and also parking is a major problem in Shenfield and Brentwood - are these facilities going to grow too? The entry and exit to the properties is too small and will be concentrating the traffic in over polluted, high traffic areas.

Not only that, doctors and schools are over subscribed - I cannot see any advantage to these houses being built especially as we already have more housing on the Chelmsford Road and Wash Road roundabout.

I object to the new housing proposals.

Page 3 Para. 5: While this document is primarily a consultation on sites, we have also updated our vision, strategic objectives and spatial strategy to reflect progress made on the technical evidence and review of representations. Comment/Objection: Whilst there may have been a review of representations, there has been no formal, detailed response to representations made by PLNRA since March 2016. Page 4 Para. 7: Evidence in its broadest sense means anything that informs the plan-making process, including the Sustainability Appraisal, Duty to Cooperate discussion, consultation responses, and technical evidence. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence in any section of the Draft Local Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account and that detailed sustainability and technical evidence submitted have been analysed and given appropriate consideration. Page 4 Para. 8: A Consultation Statement detailing previous representations has been published alongside this document. Comment/Objection: There are various references to previous historic consultation exercises undertaken, but an up-to-date document detailing the 2016 representations has not been found yet, other than reference to the numbers of responses made. Page 4/5 Para 9: Support for protecting the Green Belt and environmental assets, and building upon brownfield land only were strong themes in the consultation feedback. A number of stakeholders objected to the Dunton Hills Garden Village in principle and the extent of development along the A127 corridor. A wide range of comments were also raised on the need for additional plan evidence. Comment/Objection: Sites 044/178 are greenfield protected urban space sites. The Dunton Hills development is mentioned specifically, but the Priests Lane sites, which attracted a high proportion of objections, are not mentioned. 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/Objection: There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites other than, presumably, they are available. The site assessment (Page 72) is shallow and weak. There is no evidence of robustness or balance. Page 6 Para 15: A key part of the evidence base is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)...Its role is to promote sustainable development...The SA allows us to consider opportunities to improve environmental, social and economic conditions in the local area and identify how to mitigate the impact of development. Comment/Objection: To what extent is there a specific Sustainabilty Appraisal of sites 044/178? How will environmental, social and economic conditions be improved in Priests Lane and how will the impact of development be mitigated? There is no evidence provided as answers to these questions. Page 6 Para 17: Refers to a Habitats Regulations Assessment screening that has been undertaken for Local Plan sites. Comment/Objection: What does it say regarding sites 044/178? It is not mentioned in the preferred site statement. Page 7 Para 18a: delivering the right infrastructure at the right time: ensuring that infrastructure to support new housing and employment opportunities, such as schools, health and transport are delivered at an appropriate scale and in a timely manner. Comment/Objection: Mere verbiage with no detail, although statistics on schools and local surgeries do appear later. Page 7 Para 18c: supporting high quality design...helping to minimise the impact of new infrastructure on local character and enhancing areas through innovative design which positively responds to local heritage and environments. Comment/Objection: No evidence presented as to how this might be achieved. What is meant by 'innovative design' that would be in keeping with the Priests Lane environment? What design strategies are profit-making developers likely to adopt? Page 7 Para 18d: enhancing green infrastructure networks: improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. Comment/Objection: How will this will be helped by removing a protected greenfield site? Page 7 Para 19: refers to the Draft Infrastructure Plan that is being continually updated. Comment/Objection: What is this? Page 11 Inset: 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.....Brentwood will grow sustainably with new development directed to urban brownfield opportunity sites, well planned urban extensions. Comment/Objection: Except for Priests Lane, presumably, since we are targeted to lose a green space and have a highway that is conducive neither to cycling nor walking, but a connecting 'rat-run between Shenfield and Brentwood traversed by high speed traffic. Page 12 Para 28 SO1: maximise sustainable growth opportunities within our built-up areas and on brownfield sites. Page 12 Para 28 SO2: direct development growth in locations well served by existing and proposed local services and facilities. Page 12 Para 28 SO5: manage development growth to that capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure, services and facilities. Comment/Objection: What represents 'sustainable' growth? Why are sites 044/178 the only identified greenfield sites? What evidence is identified for sites 044/178 being well served by existing infrastructure, local services and facilities - a set of statistics about schools and surgeries does not equal appropriate services? What proposals are there to enhance services? Page 12 Para 28 SO6: Plan for housing...creating inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean for Priests Lane, one of the highest value housing areas in the borough? Page 13 Para 28 SO16: Protect and enhance valuable landscapes and the natural and historic environments. Page 13 Para 28 SO17: Establish a rich connected network of Green infrastructure across the Borough and reaching beyond. Comment/Objection: Developing sites 044/178 is clearly contrary to both the above objectives. Page 13 Para 28 SO19: Secure the delivery of essential infrastructure, including education, health, recreation and community facilities to support new development growth throughout its delivery. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence to confirm that education and health facilities will be delivered, given that the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current need, whilst there is no evidence to support any view that surgeries can and will meet any substantial increase in demand - statistics do not often equate to reality. Page 13 Para 28 SO20: support self-build housing in sustainable locations across the Borough. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean? Which locations? Safeguards against blight? Page 13 Para 28 SO21: Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections Page 13 Para 28 SO22: Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars. Priests Lane is poorly served by pavements, which are too narrow and situated on alternate sides of the road. Any improvements are likely to narrow the width of the road below national guidelines that the Lane hardly meets now and actually transgresses in some places. Cycling in Priests Lane is almost suicidal and is rarely in evidence!! Page 14 Para 31The spatial strategy continues to focus upon the sequential use of land which prioritises using brownfield first and then considers growth in settlements in terms of their relative sustainability linked to services and facilities. This approach is in line with government guidance and best practice. The release of Green Belt land should only be considered after all sustainably located, suitable, available and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified as allocations. Comment/Objection: Again we have to ask - why sites 044/178, given their denotation? There is no evidence presented about their sustainability and likely required links to services and facilities. Which sites have been discounted as alternatives to these 2 sites? Pages 18/19 Paras 41/42: However, importantly due to the worsening of the affordability ratio in Brentwood and the increased costs of rental levels, conclusions identify the need for a reasonable upwards market signal adjustment. Compared to most of Essex, the borough is much less affordable, homes are more expensive, and now less affordable than the last housing boom. The degree of market signal uplift is a matter of professional judgment and evidence indicates a 30% uplift above the new 280 dwellings per annum baseline, plus a small contingency of 6% should new official projections indicate a slightly different position to that forecasted. 42. In summary, using the minimum revised net dwelling baseline figure (280) plus combined market signal adjustment and contingency adjustment of 36%, this leaves an objectively assessed housing need of circa 380 dwellings per annum or 7,600 dwellings across the plan period (2013-33). The revised housing need from 362 per annum to 380 per annum across the plan period (20 years) equates to a total dwelling increase of 360 additional units.'. The updated SHMA is published as part of this consultation. Comment/Objection: I am not qualified to analyse the Housing Need statistics and hence assume them to be accurate. However, what are concerning are the admissions that housing and rental costs in Brentwood are high and less affordable, that projections suggest that perhaps only 280 dwellings are required per annum and that, therefore, a market signal uplift of 30% plus a contingency of 6% should be accepted, raising the annual build to 380. The statisticians amongst us will correct me, but am I to assume that the increased build per annum (which is substantial) is to do with increasing supply in the hope of reducing house/rental prices? This would actually be insane if the projected demand does not, and was never meant to, meet supply. Page 22 Para 55: The Council received a number of representations on the Draft Local Plan (2016) suggesting that there was a lack of information about the site assessment methodology and overall process. A summary of the site assessment process undertaken is detailed in Figure 7, with a detailed site assessment methodology technical note available alongside this consultation. This work is based upon best practice and is considered to provide a robust framework for site assessment and selection. NPPF Footnote: To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer suitable location for development now,..be achievable... delivered within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable; to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development. Site options will be assessed in terms of their impact on a number of primary factors, including flood risk, Green Belt, landscape and highways....impact on historic assets, ecological designations, utilities, education and health facilities. All sites that have passed stages1 and 2 (site selection) will be appraised using objective (WHERE POSSIBLE) site selection criteria. This stage will identify any significant negative effects THAT MAY REQUIRE MITIGATION (my capitals) if a site is subsequently put forward for allocation. This study will identify whether proposed areas/sites/types of sites are viable and deliverable in the plan period. If evidence cannot give this confidence then it may be necessary to revise draft local plan policies and/or go back a stage and find alternative sites. This approach attempts to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within sustainable locations. Comment/Objection: We need to review the technical note, given that the assessment of sites 044/178 is so weak. Note there is no comment in this revised plan Site Assessment of 044/178 referring to flood risk, landscape, highways, ecology, utilities, whilst the statistical references to Hogarth School and surgeries are questionable. Furthermore, if the process is so robust, why should site selection criteria not be objective? Why should a site that does not meet suitable selection criteria receive mitigation? With regard to Page 22 Para 55 we could conclude that there is a change of attitude here compared to that we have encountered in meetings with Louise McKinley and other councillors/representatives. Previously we have been told the entire Plan would be rejected by inspectors/government if sites 044/178 were not included as available sites. Para 55 implies this may no longer be the case and that sites that fail to meet development criteria could be discounted. Alternatively, we could interpret Para 55 as meaning that if sites 044/178 failed to meet the criteria, alternative reasons will be found to force development of the sites!! Page 25 Para 59: Brownfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 1,152 net homes / 13.94% of total build. Greenfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 95 net homes / 1.15% of total build Overall total build 8263 (100%) - Allocation total 6154 (74.48% of overall total). Comment/Objection: Whilst the net homes allocation at Priests Lane appears small taken as a total of planned building across Brentwood, the actual percentage of net build (Brentwood Urban Area Greenfield) at sites 044/178 compared to Brentwood Urban Area (Brownfield) net build is 8.25% which is a much higher percentage of net build in the Urban Area net build category, bearing in mind that the Priests Lane sites are the only identified greenfield sites in the entire plan/Borough. Furthermore, whilst comment on the planned 36% uplift on required housing has been made earlier, it is now clear this represents an net uplift of 2109 dwellings over the life of the plan, much of which would be expected to be built within 5 years of granted planning permission. These 2109 dwellings would then be built in the hope of driving down house/rental prices. Consequently, Priests Lane would be paying a rather high environmental price for the sake of an economic demand/supply house price lottery. Page 29 Para 64d: Work is progressing on....providing further design, layout and land use direction for the sites at Priests Lane and Honeypot Lane Comment/Objection: There is no detail provided about this and hence its meaning is unknown. Page 37 Para 77: For the year 2016/17, the net capacity of non-independent primary schools in the Borough was 6,032 pupils across 24 schools[11]. In the immediate future (2017/18) the net capacity of non-independent primary schools will increase to 6,222 pupils mainly driven by expanding Hogarth Primary School to a two-form entry (2FE) with 420 pupil capacity. Comment/Objection: The plan admits that the expansion of Hogarth Primary School will deal with predicted increased enrolments in 2017-18. It will then have a surplus capacity of 61 places by 2021-22. However, the Development Plan predicts a shortfall of places at Long Ridings Primary School of 217 places and Larchwood Primary School of 55 places - a total shortfall of 272 places. Since there is no mention of any further expansion at these 2 schools and given their relative proximity to Hogarth Primary School, it could be suggested that some of the need for places will be met by Hogarth. In this scenario further vehicle movements can be predicted in Priests Lane, increasing the danger to children that already exists. We should also recognize the notorious difficulty in predicting school place demand year-on-year (especially in areas of new housing - 95 homes could generate 30 children or 150, the number is unpredictable), the sudden inability of schools to meet demand and the unexpected frailty of schools where demand falls away. Page 45 Para 96: The Council will be looking to support the further development of the Endeavour School to provide facilities for sixth form students. This education requirement will need to be built into the detailed layout and masterplanning for the proposed housing site at land at Priests Lane (044/178). Comment/Objection: No detail is provided. What is clear is that expansion of Endeavour School, which is to be welcomed, is at odds with a sizeable housing development that will aggravate the health and safety obligations to already vulnerable children. Page 48 Paras 103 (stats) and 104: Current infrastructure services improvements alone are unlikely to address the significant patient pressures that may occur through housing growth in the Borough during the lifetime of the plan. Comment/Objection: If we only count forecast new patients at the nearest surgeries to Sites 044/178 - Rockleigh Court, Mount Avenue, The New Surgery and Tile House, they number 1023+1025+779+782 = 3609 respectively ( or a 34.46% increase). The average UK occupancy of each dwelling is 3.7; 95 houses could generate an additional population of 352 residents requiring medical services, i.e. 9.75% of the additional forecast new patients. It is well known that obtaining appointments at these surgeries is currently difficult or involves lengthy wait times, so the problems experienced by Priests Lane residents will only be exacerbated, a fact further aggravated by the local age profile. Page 50 Para 107: Brentwood is an attractive business location with a high quality environment .... and good transport links. Comment/Objection: Many local businesses have struggled to survive in a high rent and rates environment. Vacant sites at the Baytree Centre bear this out, along with the proliferation of food outlets in Brentwood and Shenfield High Streets. Brentwood High Street is mainly beset by fast food chains, hairdressers and charity shops - the recipe for High Street decline. As for travel to London, the current cost of a train season ticket from Shenfield is £3000. If the commuter wishes to go on from Liverpool Street to central London, the cost rises to £4000 and car parking is an extra £1000. Who exactly will be able to afford to live in Brentwood, commute to London and pay a mortgage for an affordable house in the borough, which is currently calculated at £440,000? Page 52 Para 110: The updated economic evidence...considers a number of evaluation factors including travel to work areas, commuting flows...and strategic transport routes. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127/A128 and the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating narrow pavements and does not meet many national highway criteria nor acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood developments and Officers Meadow (the need for which is understood). Priests Lane is not suited to serve increased traffic levels. (Included site plan for sites 178 and 044). Comment/Objection: The problems with access onto Priests Lane are not mentioned. The reference to secondary access via Bishop Walk is not supportable, given the nature/width of the road is only sufficient for the few houses it serves. The references to contextual analysis, informing typologies, scale, materiality and landscaping are not explained and are, hence, meaningless. There is a brief reference to traffic problems (but these are viewed cursorily as 'localised' - surely all traffic could be defined as localised!!) . All other myriad objections to sites 044/178, often highly technical and evidenced, relating to the LDP issued in January 2016 have been ignored, as they have been for the whole of the intervening period to date. The only mantra we have received is that the land 'must' be developed for the sake of the Plan - which has now been disproved. The current designation of the sites as Protected Urban Open Space is acknowledged.

Page 3 Para. 5: While this document is primarily a consultation on sites, we have also updated our vision, strategic objectives and spatial strategy to reflect progress made on the technical evidence and review of representations. Comment/Objection: Whilst there may have been a review of representations, there has been no formal, detailed response to representations made by PLNRA since March 2016. Page 4 Para. 7: Evidence in its broadest sense means anything that informs the plan-making process, including the Sustainability Appraisal, Duty to Cooperate discussion, consultation responses, and technical evidence. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence in any section of the Draft Local Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account and that detailed sustainability and technical evidence submitted have been analysed and given appropriate consideration. Page 4 Para. 8: A Consultation Statement detailing previous representations has been published alongside this document. Comment/Objection: There are various references to previous historic consultation exercises undertaken, but an up-to-date document detailing the 2016 representations has not been found yet, other than reference to the numbers of responses made. Page 4/5 Para 9: Support for protecting the Green Belt and environmental assets, and building upon brownfield land only were strong themes in the consultation feedback. A number of stakeholders objected to the Dunton Hills Garden Village in principle and the extent of development along the A127 corridor. A wide range of comments were also raised on the need for additional plan evidence. Comment/Objection: Sites 044/178 are greenfield protected urban space sites. The Dunton Hills development is mentioned specifically, but the Priests Lane sites, which attracted a high proportion of objections, are not mentioned. 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/Objection: There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites other than, presumably, they are available. The site assessment (Page 72) is shallow and weak. There is no evidence of robustness or balance. Page 6 Para 15: A key part of the evidence base is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)...Its role is to promote sustainable development...The SA allows us to consider opportunities to improve environmental, social and economic conditions in the local area and identify how to mitigate the impact of development. Comment/Objection: To what extent is there a specific Sustainabilty Appraisal of sites 044/178? How will environmental, social and economic conditions be improved in Priests Lane and how will the impact of development be mitigated? There is no evidence provided as answers to these questions. Page 6 Para 17: Refers to a Habitats Regulations Assessment screening that has been undertaken for Local Plan sites. Comment/Objection: What does it say regarding sites 044/178? It is not mentioned in the preferred site statement. Page 7 Para 18a: delivering the right infrastructure at the right time: ensuring that infrastructure to support new housing and employment opportunities, such as schools, health and transport are delivered at an appropriate scale and in a timely manner. Comment/Objection: Mere verbiage with no detail, although statistics on schools and local surgeries do appear later. Page 7 Para 18c: supporting high quality design...helping to minimise the impact of new infrastructure on local character and enhancing areas through innovative design which positively responds to local heritage and environments. Comment/Objection: No evidence presented as to how this might be achieved. What is meant by 'innovative design' that would be in keeping with the Priests Lane environment? What design strategies are profit-making developers likely to adopt? Page 7 Para 18d: enhancing green infrastructure networks: improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. Comment/Objection: How will this will be helped by removing a protected greenfield site? Page 7 Para 19: refers to the Draft Infrastructure Plan that is being continually updated. Comment/Objection: What is this? Page 11 Inset: 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.....Brentwood will grow sustainably with new development directed to urban brownfield opportunity sites, well planned urban extensions. Comment/Objection: Except for Priests Lane, presumably, since we are targeted to lose a green space and have a highway that is conducive neither to cycling nor walking, but a connecting 'rat-run between Shenfield and Brentwood traversed by high speed traffic. Page 12 Para 28 SO1: maximise sustainable growth opportunities within our built-up areas and on brownfield sites. Page 12 Para 28 SO2: direct development growth in locations well served by existing and proposed local services and facilities. Page 12 Para 28 SO5: manage development growth to that capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure, services and facilities. Comment/Objection: What represents 'sustainable' growth? Why are sites 044/178 the only identified greenfield sites? What evidence is identified for sites 044/178 being well served by existing infrastructure, local services and facilities - a set of statistics about schools and surgeries does not equal appropriate services? What proposals are there to enhance services? Page 12 Para 28 SO6: Plan for housing...creating inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean for Priests Lane, one of the highest value housing areas in the borough? Page 13 Para 28 SO16: Protect and enhance valuable landscapes and the natural and historic environments. Page 13 Para 28 SO17: Establish a rich connected network of Green infrastructure across the Borough and reaching beyond. Comment/Objection: Developing sites 044/178 is clearly contrary to both the above objectives. Page 13 Para 28 SO19: Secure the delivery of essential infrastructure, including education, health, recreation and community facilities to support new development growth throughout its delivery. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence to confirm that education and health facilities will be delivered, given that the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current need, whilst there is no evidence to support any view that surgeries can and will meet any substantial increase in demand - statistics do not often equate to reality. Page 13 Para 28 SO20: support self-build housing in sustainable locations across the Borough. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean? Which locations? Safeguards against blight? Page 13 Para 28 SO21: Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections Page 13 Para 28 SO22: Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars. Priests Lane is poorly served by pavements, which are too narrow and situated on alternate sides of the road. Any improvements are likely to narrow the width of the road below national guidelines that the Lane hardly meets now and actually transgresses in some places. Cycling in Priests Lane is almost suicidal and is rarely in evidence!! Page 14 Para 31The spatial strategy continues to focus upon the sequential use of land which prioritises using brownfield first and then considers growth in settlements in terms of their relative sustainability linked to services and facilities. This approach is in line with government guidance and best practice. The release of Green Belt land should only be considered after all sustainably located, suitable, available and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified as allocations. Comment/Objection: Again we have to ask - why sites 044/178, given their denotation? There is no evidence presented about their sustainability and likely required links to services and facilities. Which sites have been discounted as alternatives to these 2 sites? Pages 18/19 Paras 41/42: However, importantly due to the worsening of the affordability ratio in Brentwood and the increased costs of rental levels, conclusions identify the need for a reasonable upwards market signal adjustment. Compared to most of Essex, the borough is much less affordable, homes are more expensive, and now less affordable than the last housing boom. The degree of market signal uplift is a matter of professional judgment and evidence indicates a 30% uplift above the new 280 dwellings per annum baseline, plus a small contingency of 6% should new official projections indicate a slightly different position to that forecasted. 42. In summary, using the minimum revised net dwelling baseline figure (280) plus combined market signal adjustment and contingency adjustment of 36%, this leaves an objectively assessed housing need of circa 380 dwellings per annum or 7,600 dwellings across the plan period (2013-33). The revised housing need from 362 per annum to 380 per annum across the plan period (20 years) equates to a total dwelling increase of 360 additional units.'. The updated SHMA is published as part of this consultation. Comment/Objection: I am not qualified to analyse the Housing Need statistics and hence assume them to be accurate. However, what are concerning are the admissions that housing and rental costs in Brentwood are high and less affordable, that projections suggest that perhaps only 280 dwellings are required per annum and that, therefore, a market signal uplift of 30% plus a contingency of 6% should be accepted, raising the annual build to 380. The statisticians amongst us will correct me, but am I to assume that the increased build per annum (which is substantial) is to do with increasing supply in the hope of reducing house/rental prices? This would actually be insane if the projected demand does not, and was never meant to, meet supply. Page 22 Para 55: The Council received a number of representations on the Draft Local Plan (2016) suggesting that there was a lack of information about the site assessment methodology and overall process. A summary of the site assessment process undertaken is detailed in Figure 7, with a detailed site assessment methodology technical note available alongside this consultation. This work is based upon best practice and is considered to provide a robust framework for site assessment and selection. NPPF Footnote: To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer suitable location for development now,..be achievable... delivered within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable; to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development. Site options will be assessed in terms of their impact on a number of primary factors, including flood risk, Green Belt, landscape and highways....impact on historic assets, ecological designations, utilities, education and health facilities. All sites that have passed stages1 and 2 (site selection) will be appraised using objective (WHERE POSSIBLE) site selection criteria. This stage will identify any significant negative effects THAT MAY REQUIRE MITIGATION (my capitals) if a site is subsequently put forward for allocation. This study will identify whether proposed areas/sites/types of sites are viable and deliverable in the plan period. If evidence cannot give this confidence then it may be necessary to revise draft local plan policies and/or go back a stage and find alternative sites. This approach attempts to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within sustainable locations. Comment/Objection: We need to review the technical note, given that the assessment of sites 044/178 is so weak. Note there is no comment in this revised plan Site Assessment of 044/178 referring to flood risk, landscape, highways, ecology, utilities, whilst the statistical references to Hogarth School and surgeries are questionable. Furthermore, if the process is so robust, why should site selection criteria not be objective? Why should a site that does not meet suitable selection criteria receive mitigation? With regard to Page 22 Para 55 we could conclude that there is a change of attitude here compared to that we have encountered in meetings with Louise McKinley and other councillors/representatives. Previously we have been told the entire Plan would be rejected by inspectors/government if sites 044/178 were not included as available sites. Para 55 implies this may no longer be the case and that sites that fail to meet development criteria could be discounted. Alternatively, we could interpret Para 55 as meaning that if sites 044/178 failed to meet the criteria, alternative reasons will be found to force development of the sites!! Page 25 Para 59: Brownfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 1,152 net homes / 13.94% of total build. Greenfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 95 net homes / 1.15% of total build Overall total build 8263 (100%) - Allocation total 6154 (74.48% of overall total). Comment/Objection: Whilst the net homes allocation at Priests Lane appears small taken as a total of planned building across Brentwood, the actual percentage of net build (Brentwood Urban Area Greenfield) at sites 044/178 compared to Brentwood Urban Area (Brownfield) net build is 8.25% which is a much higher percentage of net build in the Urban Area net build category, bearing in mind that the Priests Lane sites are the only identified greenfield sites in the entire plan/Borough. Furthermore, whilst comment on the planned 36% uplift on required housing has been made earlier, it is now clear this represents an net uplift of 2109 dwellings over the life of the plan, much of which would be expected to be built within 5 years of granted planning permission. These 2109 dwellings would then be built in the hope of driving down house/rental prices. Consequently, Priests Lane would be paying a rather high environmental price for the sake of an economic demand/supply house price lottery. Page 29 Para 64d: Work is progressing on....providing further design, layout and land use direction for the sites at Priests Lane and Honeypot Lane Comment/Objection: There is no detail provided about this and hence its meaning is unknown. Page 37 Para 77: For the year 2016/17, the net capacity of non-independent primary schools in the Borough was 6,032 pupils across 24 schools[11]. In the immediate future (2017/18) the net capacity of non-independent primary schools will increase to 6,222 pupils mainly driven by expanding Hogarth Primary School to a two-form entry (2FE) with 420 pupil capacity. Comment/Objection: The plan admits that the expansion of Hogarth Primary School will deal with predicted increased enrolments in 2017-18. It will then have a surplus capacity of 61 places by 2021-22. However, the Development Plan predicts a shortfall of places at Long Ridings Primary School of 217 places and Larchwood Primary School of 55 places - a total shortfall of 272 places. Since there is no mention of any further expansion at these 2 schools and given their relative proximity to Hogarth Primary School, it could be suggested that some of the need for places will be met by Hogarth. In this scenario further vehicle movements can be predicted in Priests Lane, increasing the danger to children that already exists. We should also recognize the notorious difficulty in predicting school place demand year-on-year (especially in areas of new housing - 95 homes could generate 30 children or 150, the number is unpredictable), the sudden inability of schools to meet demand and the unexpected frailty of schools where demand falls away. Page 45 Para 96: The Council will be looking to support the further development of the Endeavour School to provide facilities for sixth form students. This education requirement will need to be built into the detailed layout and masterplanning for the proposed housing site at land at Priests Lane (044/178). Comment/Objection: No detail is provided. What is clear is that expansion of Endeavour School, which is to be welcomed, is at odds with a sizeable housing development that will aggravate the health and safety obligations to already vulnerable children. Page 48 Paras 103 (stats) and 104: Current infrastructure services improvements alone are unlikely to address the significant patient pressures that may occur through housing growth in the Borough during the lifetime of the plan. Comment/Objection: If we only count forecast new patients at the nearest surgeries to Sites 044/178 - Rockleigh Court, Mount Avenue, The New Surgery and Tile House, they number 1023+1025+779+782 = 3609 respectively ( or a 34.46% increase). The average UK occupancy of each dwelling is 3.7; 95 houses could generate an additional population of 352 residents requiring medical services, i.e. 9.75% of the additional forecast new patients. It is well known that obtaining appointments at these surgeries is currently difficult or involves lengthy wait times, so the problems experienced by Priests Lane residents will only be exacerbated, a fact further aggravated by the local age profile. Page 50 Para 107: Brentwood is an attractive business location with a high quality environment .... and good transport links. Comment/Objection: Many local businesses have struggled to survive in a high rent and rates environment. Vacant sites at the Baytree Centre bear this out, along with the proliferation of food outlets in Brentwood and Shenfield High Streets. Brentwood High Street is mainly beset by fast food chains, hairdressers and charity shops - the recipe for High Street decline. As for travel to London, the current cost of a train season ticket from Shenfield is £3000. If the commuter wishes to go on from Liverpool Street to central London, the cost rises to £4000 and car parking is an extra £1000. Who exactly will be able to afford to live in Brentwood, commute to London and pay a mortgage for an affordable house in the borough, which is currently calculated at £440,000? Page 52 Para 110: The updated economic evidence...considers a number of evaluation factors including travel to work areas, commuting flows...and strategic transport routes. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127/A128 and the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating narrow pavements and does not meet many national highway criteria nor acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood developments and Officers Meadow (the need for which is understood). Priests Lane is not suited to serve increased traffic levels. (Included site plan for sites 178 and 044). Comment/Objection: The problems with access onto Priests Lane are not mentioned. The reference to secondary access via Bishop Walk is not supportable, given the nature/width of the road is only sufficient for the few houses it serves. The references to contextual analysis, informing typologies, scale, materiality and landscaping are not explained and are, hence, meaningless. There is a brief reference to traffic problems (but these are viewed cursorily as 'localised' - surely all traffic could be defined as localised!!) . All other myriad objections to sites 044/178, often highly technical and evidenced, relating to the LDP issued in January 2016 have been ignored, as they have been for the whole of the intervening period to date. The only mantra we have received is that the land 'must' be developed for the sake of the Plan - which has now been disproved. The current designation of the sites as Protected Urban Open Space is acknowledged.

Brentwood Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations. Re Sites 044/178: The document states that there has been a review of representations (Page 3 para. 5), but I understand there has been no detailed or formal response to representations made by the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association since March 2016. There is no evidence in the draft Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account. Although there are references to previous consultation exercises (Page 4 para. 7), there is not an up-to-date document detailing the representations made in 2016, other than a reference to the number of responses made. The document refers to protecting the Green Belt and only building on brown field land (Page 4, para. 9). However, sites 044/178 in Priests Lane are greenfield protected urban space sites and attracted a high number of objections but these sites are not mentioned. Why is this? Page 7, para. 18D refers to enhancing green infrastructure networks and improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. It is difficult to see how this objective will be helped by developing a protected greenfield site. There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites (Page 6, para. 14). The site assessment appears weak with no evidence of robustness or balance. The original plan was for the development of 135 homes which has now been reduced to 95. However, the site is still unsuitable for this number of homes. Access is proposed via Bishops Walk which is really only suitable to service the few houses there. Air pollution - already high - would increase. It would be likely to generate another 150/200 cars trying to use Priests Lane increasing congestion which is already considerable at peak times. This would be in addition to increased traffic due to developments in central Brentwood and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is very narrow and when walking down it is necessary to cross the road (more than once) to reach the pavement which itself is very narrow. It can be quite dangerous, particularly with a pushchair or wheelchair. It would become even more difficult with an increase in the number of cars using it. There seems little detail on infrastructure such as drainage and sewage in the area. This can already be a problem - there are frequently temporary traffic lights in Priests Lane due to one utility company or other having to undertake repairs. There would of course be increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and schools. It can already be difficult to get an appointment with a doctor; although the plan acknowledges this it is difficult to predict the actual need and is likely to be under estimated. When this land was previously considered for development the proposals were rejected as objections raised were considered reasonable. I understand that site 044 was considered too wet for development. What has changed? To develop the land now would undoubtedly affect the water table. Many residents in Priests Lane already suffer flooding in their gardens. No steps are proposed to prevent this problem becoming worse.

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the problem. The access site at 61a is particularly unsuitable due to the poor line of sight from that point towards the Brentwood direction of the Lane.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall, Priests Lane, St Andrew's Place and Middleton Hall Lane suffer surface flooding. Also at times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development on the sites was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.

For all the above reasons I am objecting to the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 as outlined in the Local Development Plan 2018.