If this is nhs land then make housing affordable for nurses and key workers as promised by the Health Secretary. We don't need Brentwood to be a commuter dormitory highly priced and out of reach of the people who keep our essential services running (fire fighters, police etc) Work to build a community village and have preferential allocation for local people. Zedfacory built the first eco village in the UK. They offer to build ALL affordable homes, not just a select (small number) as ordinary developers and are working with local FE colleges top get young apprentices building these.

We could have another eco village with people being lifted out of fuel poverty, cleaner air and highly desirable homes for local families for social rent or sale. Off site construction ( based in Essex on a college site) could engage young construction workers. We could have these homes all built out in less than a year using innovative partnerships. Please ensure a heart - a community centre with advice and help,with meals for the poor and elderly and a multi faith centre for those needing emotional support. How about a visiting gp? www.zedfactory.com for world class design

Major group of residents in Brentwood are couples whose children have left home but are stuck in large family homes as there are few bungalows remaining in the borough. This would be a good location for two bedroom bungalows (with constraint of their conversion to houses) due to proximity to local services.

Major group of residents in Brentwood are couples whose children have left home but are stuck in large family homes as there are few bungalows remaining in the borough. This would be a good location for two bedroom bungalows (with constraint of their conversion to houses) due to proximity to local services.

Flood risk is a concern but a small amount of dwellings per development area when compared to other sites.

There is a wooded area in the south west part of plot 186, which is contiguous with Glanthams Woods (as known locally), which are used for recreational purposes and contains a footpath between Glanthams Road and Crescent Drive. The woods are home to wildlife and is a 'green lung' for the area. Could you confirm whether the Council plans to preserve a high percentage of trees on site 186 and respect the identity and character of the adjacent woods and prevent further encroachment?

55 units is far too high in an area dominated by detached house and in a ecological sensitive area

I do not specifically object to housing development on this site. Rather wanting to raise concerns about the already appalling drainage situation and flood risk in that area, which significantly impacts myself and my neighbours.
In June 2016, the debris which the watercourse running through the area of woodland behind the proposed site picked up, caused a blockage to a culvert at the rear of 35 Middleton Road. This in turn caused the water to run through the night into our property and our neighbours in Worrin Road. The properties were immediately uninhabitable for over 6 months while buildings were dried, reinstated and refurnished. We were in rented accommodation for over 4 months while the houses were not habitable. I am aware that this type of flooding has occurred here prior to us moving here in 2010. We are lucky at the moment to have a vigilant neighbour at no 35 Middleton Road who has, at his own expense, installed a CCTV camera. He is regularly digging out the culvert in downpours to try to prevent a recurrence, sometimes several times a week, sometimes several time a night. the debris blocking the grate on the culvert causing the flooding is picked up by the watercourse flowing through BCC owned woodland. Having made representations to Adrian Tidbury about this problem, the councils response is that they can do nothing to improve this system which is clearly unfit for purpose. Bcc say they do not own the culvert and do not know who does. Waterboards do not know who owns it. Land registry do not know who owns it. It appears to be on a piece of unregistered land. Adrian Tidbury has confirmed that BCC will not be applying for a grant from Essex CC to improve the watercourse following Essex CC watercourse expert Tom Palmers Recommendations.
Adrian has commented that he cannot implement improvements that may flood BCC woodlands. Personally, I cannot compare your woodlands being flooded to our houses being flooded...............
So, in summary, mine and my neighbours concerns relate to the fact that the drainage for these proposed dwellings is NOT added into the system at the rear, into the woodlands. This would highly likely cause a devastating effect to our houses, (although your woodlands would probably be ok, which appears to be your main concern). Also, if the development goes ahead and drainage is updated and improved, is it likely or possible that the system that is there at present, which is clearly unfit for its job, can also be looked at and improved? I am surprised so far at BCC lack of concern at our situation. It seems that historically, as development has been added to in the Crescent Drive area, there has been little thought about where the extra water goes. Particularly run off from the large expanse of concrete car park at the community hospital and blood bank. Also the lack of maintenance to the water system, storm drains and pipes that are regularly blocked in the woodland area behind these areas and up to Worrin Close and Brentwood School.
I would therefore hope that particular consideration is given throughout this process to making improvement to the systems that are currently in place before adding to our problems.
Thank you.

A major storm drain runs under the Blood Bank and connects a storm chamber in the woods with a main drain under Crescent Drive. This pipe also removes rain water from the Blood bank via a number of manholes.
Regular maintenance is not carried out and when the pipe blocks houses in Worrin Road suffer flood damage. This has happened a number of times since I have lived here.
Developing this site without improvement to the flood controls will further endanger my property. There is no provision in the plan for flood control improvements either to this site or the adjacent woodland.

Housing density of 35 per HA why so low when brentwood town centre is targeted for between 90 and 228?

This is a promising brownfield site to build new houses.

55 dwellings is far too many for this site. It would more than double the number of dwellings in an already busy road, which is used by visitors to the hospital as well as being a major route on the school run. Any development should be in keeping with the rest of the properties in the road, which would mean far fewer dwellings.
In addition, I understand that the land in question is covenanted for NHS use, like the land on which the Community Hospital stands, so am surprised to find it earmarked for housing development.

I am writing to you as a site has been allocated for housing redevelopment in the draft Local Plan which is near to our property and which could have a major adverse affect on several houses in Worrin Road due to significantly increased flood risk. Please note that in June 2016 five properties in Worrin Road were badly flooded as a result of a nearby stream bursting its banks due to heavy rain. Our house was under 15 inches of water and we were rehoused for 8 months whist the property was repaired and made habitable. This stream has a history of bursting its banks. It flows along the south-eastern boundary of the old Blood Bank site in Crescent Drive, Shenfield then splits in two. Firstly an open stream flows north east and then under the properties in Worrin Road and secondly a large culvert passes to the north under the old Blood Bank site. The Blood Bank site has been identified as site Ref 186 in Appendix A of the draft Local Plan as suitable for redevelopment with 55 houses. We are anxious to ensure that any development of this site does not allow for any surface water to drain into this stream as any additional water would increase the flood risk dramatically. Ideally any new surface drainage from the redevelopment of old Blood Bank site should discharge into the large underground culvert that passes underneath the site. Our neighbours and us are always on flood watch whenever there is heavy rain as the existing drainage system that exists does not work properly. There is a grille at the entrance to he culvert where the stream goes underground and we have had to unblock it dozens of times over the last 18 months. The drainage system in this area is not fit for purpose and any extra water put into this system as a result of redeveloping this site is highly likely to cause us to be flooded again. Please note that Flood Investigation and Watercourse Regulation Officers from Essex County Council are both familiar with the flood in 2016 and the ongoing flood risk which we face.We do not oppose the allocation of this site for redevelopment in itself but thought that you should be made aware of the flood history and the ongoing flood risk in this area. Hopefully you will notify us of any planning applications which are submitted for the redevelopment of this site in due course. We hope that you will take on board our serious concerns and we look forward to hearing from you in the near future. We will be happy to show you the stream, grille and culverts in question and we have up to date plans provided by Essex CC should you wish to see them.

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

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.

Dear Sir or Madam
I have now read through your Local Plan document on line.

As a resident of Crescent Drive I am very concerned with regard to the proposal to build on the Blood Centre site.

My main concerns are you are planning to build 55 dwellings on this site, this would be completely out of character for the Old Shenfield area.

As I see it this could mean 100 extra cars and delivery vans etc on our already busy road which get gridlocked at certain times of the day.
Also the residents are going to need schools and doctors etc.
Our schools are already full and to get in to see a doctor you can wait two weeks or longer.
I believe that the Bayman Covenant on this land is for it to be for medical uses only.
If you must build on this land I feel it should be large houses in keeping with the area or Bungalows that are in very short supply and this
would encourage older people to downsize to free up family homes.
I therefore oppose the proposal in its present form.

Dear Sir or Madam
I have now read through your Local Plan document on line.

As a resident of Crescent Drive I am very concerned with regard to the proposal to build on the Blood Centre site.

My main concerns are you are planning to build 55 dwellings on this site, this would be completely out of character for the Old Shenfield area.

As I see it this could mean 100 extra cars and delivery vans etc on our already busy road which get gridlocked at certain times of the day.
Also the residents are going to need schools and doctors etc.
Our schools are already full and to get in to see a doctor you can wait two weeks or longer.
I believe that the Bayman Covenant on this land is for it to be for medical uses only.
If you must build on this land I feel it should be large houses in keeping with the area or Bungalows that are in very short supply and this
would encourage older people to downsize to free up family homes.
I therefore oppose the proposal in its present form.

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.

'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'.

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.

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 am writing to you as a site has been allocated for housing redevelopment in the draft Local Plan which is near to our property and which could have a major adverse affect on several houses in Worrin Road due to significantly increased flood risk. Please note that in June 2016 five properties in Worrin Road (house numbers identified) were badly flooded as a result of a nearby stream bursting its banks due to heavy rain. Our house was under 15 inches of water and we were rehoused for 8 months whist the property was repaired and made habitable. This stream has a history of bursting its banks. It flows along the south-eastern boundary of the old Blood Bank site in Crescent Drive, Shenfield then splits in two. Firstly an open stream flows north east and then under the properties in Worrin Road and secondly a large culvert passes to the north under the old Blood Bank site. The Blood Bank site has been identified as site Ref 186 in Appendix A of the draft Local Plan as suitable for redevelopment with 55 houses. We are anxious to ensure that any development of this site does not allow for any surface water to drain into this stream as any additional water would increase the flood risk dramatically. Ideally any new surface drainage from the redevelopment of old Blood Bank site should discharge into the large underground culvert that passes underneath the site. Our neighbours and us are always on flood watch whenever there is heavy rain as the existing drainage system that exists does not work properly. There is a grille at the entrance to he culvert where the stream goes underground and we have had to unblock it dozens of times over the last 18 months. The drainage system in this area is not fit for purpose and any extra water put into this system as a result of redeveloping this site is highly likely to cause us to be flooded again. Please note that Flood Investigation Engineer & Watercourse Regulation Engineer, at Essex CC are both familiar with the flood in 2016 and the ongoing flood risk which we face. We do not oppose the allocation of this site for redevelopment in itself but thought that you should be made aware of the flood history and the ongoing flood risk in this area. Hopefully you will notify us of any planning applications which are submitted for the redevelopment of this site in due course. We hope that you will take on board our serious concerns and we look forward to hearing from you in the near future. We will be happy to show you the stream, grille and culverts in question and we have up to date plans provided by Essex CC should you wish to see them.

With reference to the above draft local plan (ref 186), and possible housing development of the old blood bank site in Crescent Drive, I wish to raise some concerns. Myself and my family live in Worrin Road, and in June 2016, our property, and several of our neighbours houses and gardens were badly flooded from the rear of our properties. This was due to a stream which runs along the rear of the blood bank and is then taken underground in a culvert at the rear of a property in Middleton Road, becoming totally unable to cope with the amount of both ground water and run off water from the largely concreted areas in the blood bank and hospital. The debris that the water carries with it from woodland owned by Brentwood Council then blocked the culvert, causing the water to be diverted through our properties instead of being taken underground. Our house (house number), and our immediate neighbour at (house number), were so badly flooded internally that we had to move out immediately, spend 3 weeks at my parents, and subsequently into rented accommodation until our house was dried out and reinstated by builders provided by our insurers. We were unable to move back in until the beginning of November, over 4 months after it flooded. Our neighbours flood damage was much worse than ours, they were out for approx. 8 months. Not an experience I would want to have to repeat. Our concern is, that any redevelopment MUST pay extreme attention to drainage plans. If this possible development increases surface water, or the capacity of water going into this system, I have no doubt that we would be flooded again. At present we have a very vigilant neighbour in Middleton Road who watches the culvert for blockages on a CCTV camera he has installed at his own cost. He also regularly unblocks the culvert, several times a week, and at ungodly hours. I have no doubt that if he was not so vigilant we would have been flooded several times since June 2016. (Name of officer) from Brentwood Council has seen this culvert in action, and has seen CCTV footage of it becoming blocked in the space of 2 minutes with debris carried from your woodland. He advised us that Brentwood are not prepared to apply for a grant from Essex CC to put in place improvements to the area which Essex CC have recommended having surveyed the area with us in 2016 and 2017. He felt these improvements may lead to your woodland area becoming flooded. Personally I cannot compare your woodland being flooded to properties being flooded to the extent that residents are left homeless!! But I now know where Brentwood Councils priorities lie. Apologies for the long explanation, but I feel quite strongly that you should be made aware of the flood risk we face if the development goes ahead without the appropriate considerations for those of us in the path of this water. The system that is there at present does not work properly, the culvert is not fit for its purpose, and any extra water put into this system is highly likely to cause us more problems. I am also sending this e mail to my local councillors for their information.

Our house (location given). The traffic on the road during peak periods, such as school run, is so bad that many times I have difficulty getting off my drive onto the road, with the traffic queuing all the way from the high road, past the hospital to Middleton Road. By adding to this, the proposal to build 55 dwellings in Crescent Drive (which will probably represent more than 55 cars) presents a severe safety risk at peak times coupled with its potential disrupting affect for the hospital traffic. Similarly with Priest's Lane. The queues in the morning or evening trying to get out of, or into, respectively, the road are horrendous, particularly so at the Brentwood School end but also seriously affecting the junction with the Ingrave Road, which you can see from your offices! Similarly with the Shenfield Station end where it joins the main road as Friars Avenue and causes disruption because of the continuous queuing along the main road, past the station. Brentwood and Shenfield both have significant parking problems with existing traffic, with particularly severe issues at peak times. To build without significant investment in the necessary infrastructure to cope with the inevitable consequences, such as traffic and parking, will destroy the nature of both towns. It will turn the towns into car parks! To put 7000 homes in the Brentwood and Shenfield area over 5 years, is a recipe for disaster. The simple logistics of building the houses will in itself cause the towns problems for 5 years. The traffic increase will keep the towns in permanent gridlock, increase the likelihood of accidents throughout the neighbourhoods and make the towns environmental disaster areas.

The Review lacks an allocation of urban brown land for housing to attract older Brentwood residents from houses that have become too big for them. This shortage of downshift-suitable housing is most noticeable in Shenfield, where once-numerous bungalows and smaller houses have been bought up and much-expanded by younger households.

The closure of the Bloodbank in Crescent Drive, midway between Brentwood and Shenfield, offers a rare opportunity to add downshift-appropriate houses to the Shenfield housing mix and, by recycling a number of the Bloodbank buildings, to create downshift-appropriate apartments as well.

Wood Plc are planning consultants to Home England (HE) (formerly Homes & Communities Agency). As current landowners, HE are fully supportive of an allocation for residential development on the site. The site is brownfield land and in a sustainable location within the urban area of Brentwood. HE have recently met with Brentwood Council's policy team to confirm their intention to shortly market the site. To support the marketing process a Planning Brief is being prepared to set out the policy context, outline opportunities and constraints, and provide early design direction. Brentwood Council are supportive of this process and keen for development on this and other brownfield sites to come forward in the short term. HE envisage construction of the site completed within 3 years and support the allocation's reference to 1-5 year delivery timeframe. Early capacity analysis has confirmed that approximately 55 units can be achieved on site with a sensitive and appropriate design response reflecting a policy compliant mix. The site's topography varies across the site. Depending on the construction approach to site reprofiling/ levelling, there could be the opportunity for more than 55 units on the site eg with additional storeys on apartment blocks(s) should the site be reprofiled to be at a lower level than currently. Unit numbers could also be dependent on the final mix of units and the final amount of car parking agreed. We support the use of the word 'approximately' and are keen for Brentwood Council to avoid capping upper limits. The south-west and west of the site lies in the Green Belt. These areas are largely wooded but do contain hardstanding areas which have been in car park use for several decades. As previously developed land, these areas are suitable for redevelopment (see Para 89 of the NPPF) subject to an assessment of impact on Green Belt openness. As all surrounding land to the south and west is established woodland, there can be no impact on the openness of the Green Belt as a result of development in these areas. It is suggested that, as part of the Site Allocations/ Local Plan process, the Green Belt boundary is redrawn to exclude the Green Belt from the site following the boundary shown on the allocations plan. This will avoid any development uncertainty to the edges of the site and create a clearer and more defendable boundary to the Green Belt in this location.

See attached.