This land forms part of the green gap between Shenfield and Mountnessing. The green land also helps stop the borough looking more built up than it really is - as it seems there are houses either side of every road.

flooding is my only concern with this site and maybe the impact with the traffic access to the A12.

This development, when taken with others in similar areas, will result in a corridor of housing between Shenfleld and Mountessing. It will mean the end of green corridors. Whilst the assurance that new primary provision will be considered, the long term implications for schooling are worrying.

This area has a history of flooding and it is unlikly that ther is sufficent utility infrastructure in the area

I support this development which will take advantage of improvements to the A12 and will provide houses where they are needed without spoiling the character of villages.

Good access to main road and a contained development.

Highways & Transportation Comment -
Development on this site will need to be viewed from a holistic perspective to ensure that it contributes to a pool of funding to provide an enhanced level of bus service to serve the 825 homes planned. It will also be important to ensure that the design layout of the site facilitates sustainable access, ideally with bus gates or other interventions designed to maximise such access whilst giving these modes a journey time advantage.

The proposed development would be inappropriate for a green belt area. This site is currently farmland and development would adversely affect the natural environment and the wildlife inhabiting the area. The scale of the proposed development would greatly impact the open natural feel of the surrounding area.

The proposed development would result in properties along the adjacent section of Chelmsford Road (A1023) being overlooked causing loss of privacy.

Chelmsford Road is already a busy and noisy road that is frequently congested especially if the A12 is congested . Additional housing development in this area will only make this worse.

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

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

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

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

Background - We moved into Shenfield from Havering 25 years ago as it offered a mainly unspoilt semi-rural environment that was conducive to bringing up a family. Thankfully it has remained mostly the same until recent years when property demolitions and major re-configurations were granted. Unfortunately this trend has become the norm and only benefits the property speculators.

Comments outlining objections (to A1023 related developments site ref 034, 087,158 235, 263 & 276)

Look and Feel of Shenfield - (This is the main point) - Despite the advent of Crossrail and on-going property developments, this area still retains some of its original character. I would suggest that people live here for this reason and it is not necessarily because they want estate style housing. By opening it up to the scale of the development outlined, you are transforming it into another overspill town devoid of character

Highways & Transportation - The existing A1023 artery route into Brentwood, at times, cannot support the volume of traffic that uses it. At certain times e.g. start and end of school day, incidents on A12, even trying to turn into this road from the southern side is difficult and hazardous. The road in its current configuration could not sustain higher traffic volumes especially at peak times.

Supporting Retail units - Shenfield and Hutton has a small number of food retailers. Whilst there are a handful of remaining independents, the likes of Tesco and Co-op provide metro type stores that are essential for the local community, especially for those who are unable to travel to the larger supermarkets. The plan makes no mention of any provision for additional food retailers and therefore with the increased numbers of people going to Shenfield to shop, where is the provision for additional parking?

Surface water and potential flooding

The reoccurring drainage issue on the A1023 near Officers Meadow has never been attended to. Concreting over more land will just exacerbate the problem not only on the A1023 but also to other susceptible areas. This doesn't seem to have been addressed in the plan.


Healthcare

At the Doctors surgery in Mount Avenue, immediate appointments are hard to come by. What provision is being made to increase capacity at local surgeries.

Seniors Accommodation - By granting permission over the past few years to demolish or re-configure bungalows the supply of suitable housing stock for seniors has been diminished. Therefore there would be little need for Seniors accommodation if more thought had been given to the demographic of Shenfield where bungalows provided suitable housing.


In Summary

A total of 700 odd dwellings being built on greenfield sites represents a significant impact on the existing residents. I doubt that the dwellings will be affordable and therefore will mostly be an attraction to the same type of speculator who has already exploited older properties in Shenfield by demolishing or reconfiguring. So the sad fact is that renting opportunities will probably be the norm. It could be argued that this solves the housing problem but it is just kicking the can further down the road at the expense of people already living in the area and those who will pay inflated rents. Yes something needs to be done about the housing problem but not on the scale that the plan sets out and by not by concreting over greenfield areas that are so close to an existing residential area.

We moved to Shenfield as it was not an overspill town and had genuine rural characteristics. Don't spoil it.

Background - We moved into Shenfield from Havering 25 years ago as it offered a mainly unspoilt semi-rural environment that was conducive to bringing up a family. Thankfully it has remained mostly the same until recent years when property demolitions and major re-configurations were granted. Unfortunately this trend has become the norm and only benefits the property speculators.

Comments outlining objections (to A1023 related developments site ref 034, 087,158 235, 263 & 276)

Look and Feel of Shenfield - (This is the main point) - Despite the advent of Crossrail and on-going property developments, this area still retains some of its original character. I would suggest that people live here for this reason and it is not necessarily because they want estate style housing. By opening it up to the scale of the development outlined, you are transforming it into another overspill town devoid of character

Highways & Transportation - The existing A1023 artery route into Brentwood, at times, cannot support the volume of traffic that uses it. At certain times e.g. start and end of school day, incidents on A12, even trying to turn into this road from the southern side is difficult and hazardous. The road in its current configuration could not sustain higher traffic volumes especially at peak times.

Supporting Retail units - Shenfield and Hutton has a small number of food retailers. Whilst there are a handful of remaining independents, the likes of Tesco and Co-op provide metro type stores that are essential for the local community, especially for those who are unable to travel to the larger supermarkets. The plan makes no mention of any provision for additional food retailers and therefore with the increased numbers of people going to Shenfield to shop, where is the provision for additional parking?

Surface water and potential flooding

The reoccurring drainage issue on the A1023 near Officers Meadow has never been attended to. Concreting over more land will just exacerbate the problem not only on the A1023 but also to other susceptible areas. This doesn't seem to have been addressed in the plan.


Healthcare

At the Doctors surgery in Mount Avenue, immediate appointments are hard to come by. What provision is being made to increase capacity at local surgeries.

Seniors Accommodation - By granting permission over the past few years to demolish or re-configure bungalows the supply of suitable housing stock for seniors has been diminished. Therefore there would be little need for Seniors accommodation if more thought had been given to the demographic of Shenfield where bungalows provided suitable housing.


In Summary

A total of 700 odd dwellings being built on greenfield sites represents a significant impact on the existing residents. I doubt that the dwellings will be affordable and therefore will mostly be an attraction to the same type of speculator who has already exploited older properties in Shenfield by demolishing or reconfiguring. So the sad fact is that renting opportunities will probably be the norm. It could be argued that this solves the housing problem but it is just kicking the can further down the road at the expense of people already living in the area and those who will pay inflated rents. Yes something needs to be done about the housing problem but not on the scale that the plan sets out and by not by concreting over greenfield areas that are so close to an existing residential area.

We moved to Shenfield as it was not an overspill town and had genuine rural characteristics. Don't spoil it.

Background - We moved into Shenfield from Havering 25 years ago as it offered a mainly unspoilt semi-rural environment that was conducive to bringing up a family. Thankfully it has remained mostly the same until recent years when property demolitions and major re-configurations were granted. Unfortunately this trend has become the norm and only benefits the property speculators.

Comments outlining objections (to A1023 related developments site ref 034, 087,158 235, 263 & 276)

Look and Feel of Shenfield - (This is the main point) - Despite the advent of Crossrail and on-going property developments, this area still retains some of its original character. I would suggest that people live here for this reason and it is not necessarily because they want estate style housing. By opening it up to the scale of the development outlined, you are transforming it into another overspill town devoid of character

Highways & Transportation - The existing A1023 artery route into Brentwood, at times, cannot support the volume of traffic that uses it. At certain times e.g. start and end of school day, incidents on A12, even trying to turn into this road from the southern side is difficult and hazardous. The road in its current configuration could not sustain higher traffic volumes especially at peak times.

Supporting Retail units - Shenfield and Hutton has a small number of food retailers. Whilst there are a handful of remaining independents, the likes of Tesco and Co-op provide metro type stores that are essential for the local community, especially for those who are unable to travel to the larger supermarkets. The plan makes no mention of any provision for additional food retailers and therefore with the increased numbers of people going to Shenfield to shop, where is the provision for additional parking?

Surface water and potential flooding

The reoccurring drainage issue on the A1023 near Officers Meadow has never been attended to. Concreting over more land will just exacerbate the problem not only on the A1023 but also to other susceptible areas. This doesn't seem to have been addressed in the plan.


Healthcare

At the Doctors surgery in Mount Avenue, immediate appointments are hard to come by. What provision is being made to increase capacity at local surgeries.

Seniors Accommodation - By granting permission over the past few years to demolish or re-configure bungalows the supply of suitable housing stock for seniors has been diminished. Therefore there would be little need for Seniors accommodation if more thought had been given to the demographic of Shenfield where bungalows provided suitable housing.


In Summary

A total of 700 odd dwellings being built on greenfield sites represents a significant impact on the existing residents. I doubt that the dwellings will be affordable and therefore will mostly be an attraction to the same type of speculator who has already exploited older properties in Shenfield by demolishing or reconfiguring. So the sad fact is that renting opportunities will probably be the norm. It could be argued that this solves the housing problem but it is just kicking the can further down the road at the expense of people already living in the area and those who will pay inflated rents. Yes something needs to be done about the housing problem but not on the scale that the plan sets out and by not by concreting over greenfield areas that are so close to an existing residential area.

We moved to Shenfield as it was not an overspill town and had genuine rural characteristics. Don't spoil it.

'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'.

Preferred Site Allocations Consultation
Quadrillion Construction Ltd are a local Building & Development Contractor based in Ingatestone and therefore take a keen interest in local building affairs.
Following the prime minister's recent speech at the Royal Town Planning Institute conference we whole heartedly support the strategy a) not to sacrifice green belt on the altar of new homes, b) make better use of brownfield sites, c) green belt sites exist not to preserve landscapes but to prevent urban sprawl, d) look at sites that have previuosly been built on rather than opting for virgin countryside.
ANY site chosen for development must not cause substantial harm to the environment or cause the loss of ancient woodland, local wildlife sites and natural watercourses.
We therefore oppose development of the sites particularly allocated as 263, 276,034,235,087 & 158 along the A12 corridor as items a-d above applies in all respects.
We do support the brownfield sites initiatives and in some instances where green belt is within settlement boundaries, where services and infrastructure can be extended and utilised. Provided Open Space was maintained this would be more readily accepted by the community, be less disruptive to deliver and therefore more expedient and have financial benefits of being more affordable.

Whilst I understand the need to plan for inevitable future development, the plan outlines a disproportionate impact on Shenfield area and further consideration is needed for the various infrastructure challenges which currently exist today. Figure 14 (Settlement Hierarchy) of the current local plan understates the impact as the 95 dwellings under consideration off of Priests Lane is not included, despite being in Shenfield. Therefore, whilst other areas, excluding Dunton Hills and West Horndon, generally are expected to have increase in dwellings around 10-20%, Shenfield is outlined to have an increase in dwellings of just under 50%, from 2,053 to 3,048, once corrected for suggested allocation of 95 dwellings off Priests Lane, Shenfield (044 & 178). The main concerns are school accessibility and impact on local traffic, which is already under pressure currently without an additional 50% in capacity to consider. The suggested plan doesn't appear to consider the impact on school accessibility adequately. From primary school perspective, a new primary school is considered to take the burden from sites 034, 087, 235, 276, 158 and 263, Hogarth School is listed as potential candidate to take the uplift from other "Old Shenfield" sites, under 311 (Crescent Drive), 044 and 178 (Priests Lane). These sites have combined dwelling allocation of 55 + 95 = 150, yet the forecast excess capacity for Hogarth School is 61 places across all school years. This doesn't appear adequate. From a secondary school perspective, the plan doesn't outline a material impact. The majority of increase in capacity is expected to come from Shenfield High, from across a number of sites, not only those in the close vicinity. The total number of dwellings allocated to Shenfield High is 1,003 but doesn't include Site 263, which would be in the close vicinity of Shenfield High. This site has an allocated dwelling of 215. This site hasn't been assigned to any of the secondary schools so appears to be an omission which also needs to be considered. The total number of dwellings allocated to Shenfield High including Site 263 is therefore 1,218 plus % share from nearby villages. Excess capacity of 545 spaces doesn't seem adequate compared to the suggested increase in dwellings to be associated with Shenfield High. Linked to the school accessibility is the physical access routes and impact on local traffic. Starting with the primary school aspect in Shenfield, as mentioned above, any associated requirement for primary school places from sites 311 / 044 / 178 (Crescent Drive and Priests Lane) are expected to be allocated from capacity in Hogarth School. Access to Hogarth School from these sites is likely to be via Priest Lane into Shenfield Crescent. The local traffic in this area is already excessive and severe at peak times, as this area combines with a main route into Brentwood via Middleton Hall Road / Ingrave Road, as well as already being an access to route to Hogarth School and Brentwood School. An additional 150 dwellings in this vicinity would further exacerbate the existing severe traffic issues in this area. Moreover, Priest Lane, having expanded from being a country lane, is not well equipped for excessive traffic, being very narrow in places and without adequate pedestrian walkways in certain places and therefore doesn't seem appropriate to continue to increase traffic pressure here. From a secondary school perspective, as suggested by the number of sites which would be linked to secondary places at Shenfield High, it would appear that there is an expectation for further traffic coming from further afield, not just from those sites in the close vicinity to the school. Aside from increased traffic to and from Shenfield High, the vast number of suggested dwellings across Shenfield would no doubt have an impact on local traffic across Shenfield. Already, at peak times there are traffic challenges at a number of places across Shenfield: * Priests Lane junction with Middleton Hall Lane, as previously outlined. * Friars Avenue junction with Hutton Road * Hutton Road generally, by Shenfield Station * Hutton Road junction with Chelmsford Road * Chelmsford Road going into Brentwood. The above are main routes into / from Brentwood and would no doubt be impacted by the near 50% increase in dwellings outlined for Shenfield. From a personal perspective, living on Friars Avenue, I see the amount of vehicles which use Friars Avenue / Priests Lane as alternative route into / from Brentwood. I have concerns on the amount of increased traffic and the potential for further accidents as a result of increased local congestion. Overall I don't support the disproportional impact outlined for Shenfield.

I wish to voice my and my wife's objections to the Priests Lane Development of houses site 044 and 178.
My objection is based on transport bottleneck at junction of Priests Lane / Middleton Hall Lane and surrounding roads as it stands at the moment.
Adding a 95 further houses on this site is a ridiculous decision in an already congested area, especially at peak/rush hour times.
This is a green field site!! The only green field site in the plan.
Priests Lane is a link into Shenfield from the A127, and with a further 1000 houses on the Officer's Meadow site this will be much worse.
This road (Priests Lane) can not sustain the traffic flow at the moment, the state of the road is a mess, patched up in the short term, but never the less a congestion mess.

See attached.

See attached.

Brownfield site allocations: 311 Eagle & Child: This pub occupies a large site but in itself is not an attractive pub. There is another historic one nearby and too numerous food and alcohol outlets in the Shenfield Broadway area. 140 Chatham/Crown Street, 039 Westbury Road, 102 Hunter Avenue and 001 Brentwood Station car Parks: With an increased population envisaged and the demand for parking the redevelopment of these sites and elsewhere must be planned with these factors given priority. Greenfield land within Settlement Boundaries: 044 and 178 land at Priests lane. Development of this land is unavoidable if housing targets are to be met. 178 must take into account all the possible needs of Endeavour and Hogarth Schools. 044 Planned exit and a one through Bishop Walk are essential to spread the traffic load. Communication with St. Andrews Place must be avoided due to its bad sightline at its junction with Priests lane. A12 Corridor - urban Extensions: 022 Honeypot Lane. Excessive dense development to the boundary with the A12 should be avoided. the watercourse could be an attractive advantage to an attractive design. 263 east of Chelmsford Road. This is acceptable as it does not visibly affect views of Shenield housing, including from A1023. However it is essential that the BP garage with food outlet is included in the planning as currently traffic queing back onto the A1023 is a major road safety danger. 276, 034, 235 and 087 Officer's Meadow Area. Redevelopment of this area must be avoided since it forms an open "lung" in Shenfield which otherwise would become part of a brentwood/Shenfield conurbation as well as overloading the facilities in Shenfield. With good drainage a park and playing fields, which Shenfield lacks on any scale, should be considered. part of 034 could be joined with 263 satisfactorily. 037 is only a possibility for housing if this would not prejudice any future plans of Shenfield High School. 158 North of A1023 North of Shenfield. Redevelopment here is unsatisfactory for the same reasons as 276/235 above, again avoiding an overall Brentwood/Shenfield conurbation and housing up to the A1023 is undesirable as for 022 above. Dunton Hills garden Village. 200 This is essential to take main volume of the housing required. It must be well planned, with its own infrastructure and to help other area's local facilities being overwhelmed. General Comment. The above represents my comments on individual sites as a 70 year plus lifetime local residents. For those not mentioned I accept the site preference or for the larger Village sites I do not have enough local knowledge to comment. The sites in Ingatestone Village Service centre do not seem unreasonable.