wildlife is my only concern with this site.

Why use greenfield sites when you have plenty of brownfield sites

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.

I hope that your investment in the Chelmsford Road development sites will also extend into the existing approved football scheme for Hutton FC.

The Club is working very hard to get work on the project started through our volunteers but any support or investment as part of this new housing project would be most appreciated.

I feel it is vital that this site is used to house Hutton Football club, as this is a great focal point for the local community. As many funds as possible should be directed towards this goal.

Where is all the traffic going to go? What transport provision is being proposed to cope with additional numbers?

Self contained development with good access to main road.

This site borders Arnold's Wood Complex Local Wildlife Site (Bre 108). The Arnold's Wood Complex comprises mainly of sections of fragmented ancient woodland, with some recent secondary woodland within the network of railway lines. Prior to the construction of the various railway lines, this Site is thought to have comprised three separate ancient woods (Arnold's Wood, Arnold's Shaw and Brickley Shaw), as indicated by their structure and floral composition. Since then, recent woodland has spread within the railway land to help link these three woods
ecologically. Development at this site has the potential to result in harmful impacts on sensitive ancient woodland habitat. Any development must therefore be carefully designed to avoid harm and provide a) generous green buffers around the woodland, and b) alternative areas of open space to reduce recreational impacts on the woodland.

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 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 (A1023) 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.

The Woodland Trust appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations consultation.
As the UK's leading woodland conservation charity, the Trust aims to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future. Through the restoration and improvement of woodland biodiversity and increased awareness and understanding of important woodland, these aims can be achieved. We own over 1,250 sites across the UK, covering around 23,000 hectares (57,000 acres) and we have 500,000 members and supporters.
Ancient woodland is defined as an irreplaceable natural resource that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost. As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable sites from any form of disruptive development.
The Trust is concerned about a number of site allocations included in the Brentwood Draft Local Plan as they could lead to the damage and loss of ancient woodland.
Planning policy
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 118 states that "planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss."
The draft revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 5th March 2018, further outlines the Government's commitment to improving protection for ancient woodland through the planning system. It states that "development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable mitigation strategy exists." This wording is a clear recognition from the Government of ancient woodland's importance and better need for protection.
Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees1 states:
"Trees and woodland classed as 'ancient' or 'veteran' are irreplaceable. Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is considered important for its wildlife, soils, recreation, cultural value, history and contribution to landscapes."
Impacts on ancient woodland
Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value. Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.
Development in ancient woodland can lead to long-term changes in species composition, particularly ground flora and sensitive fauna, i.e. nesting birds, mammals and reptiles. Majorly adverse impacts would occur as a result of the removal of large areas of woodland, much of which contains high quality, valuable trees, to make way for the construction of this proposal.
When land use is changed to a more intensive use such as in this situation plant and animal populations are exposed to environmental impacts from outside of the woodland. In particular, the habitats will become more vulnerable to the outside influences, or edge effects, that result from the adjacent land's change of use. These detrimental edge effects can result in changes to the environmental conditions within the woodland and consequently affecting the wood's stable conditions. Detrimental edge effects have been shown to penetrate woodland causing changes in ancient woodland characteristics that extend up to three times the canopy height in from the forest edges.
Creation of new areas of woodland or buffer zones around semi-natural habitats, and more particularly ancient woodland, will help to reduce and ameliorate the impact of damaging edge effects, serving to improve their sustainability. The size of the buffer is dependent on the intensity of land use in the intervening matrix between ancient woods.
Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees states:

"Development can affect ancient woodland and veteran trees, and the wildlife they support, when it takes place on the site, or nearby. You can assess the potential impacts using this assessment guide and use this to help you with planning decisions.
(https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences).
Direct impacts of development on ancient woodland or veteran trees include:
* damaging or destroying all or part of them (including their soils, ground flora, or fungi)
* damaging roots and understorey (all the vegetation under the taller trees)
* damaging or compacting soil around the tree roots
* polluting the ground around them
* changing the water table or drainage of woodland or individual trees
* damaging archaeological features or heritage assets
Nearby development can also have an indirect impact on ancient woodland or veteran trees and the species they support. These can include:
* breaking up or destroying connections between woodlands and veteran trees
* reducing the amount of seminatural habitats next to ancient woodland
* increasing the amount of pollution, including dust
* increasing disturbance to wildlife from additional traffic and visitors
* increasing light pollution
* increasing damaging activities like flytipping and the impact of domestic pets
* changing the landscape character of the area"
Development must be kept as far as possible from ancient woodland, with a buffer area maintained between the ancient woodland and any development boundary. An appropriate buffer area will depend on the local circumstances and Natural England recommend "leaving an appropriate buffer zone of semi-natural habitat between the development and the ancient woodland (depending on the size of development, a minimum buffer should be at least 15 metres)."
The size of a number of the site allocations suggests that large scale development could potentially take place. The minimum 15m buffer recommendation to all development is not effective in ensuring that ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations is not affected by potential future development. Buffers should be constructed on a case-by-case basis rather than a 'one size fits all' approach.
Conclusion
The Trust is concerned about the potentially adverse impacts that the proposed site allocations will have in relation to areas of ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations. Ancient woodland should not be included in areas that are allocated for development, whether for residential, leisure or community purposes as this leaves them open to the impacts of development.
The Woodland Trust objects to the inclusion of the below site allocations in the Brentford Draft Local Plan as they are likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland within or adjacent to their boundaries. For this reason we believe the sites in the table below are unsound and should not be taken forward. We will maintain our objection until there is a commitment to either avoiding ancient woodland or providing suitable buffers to development. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.
We hope you find our comments to be of use to you. The Woodland Trust is happy to provide any additional information or support regarding the protection of ancient woodland. If you require any further information regarding points raised within this document, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

081 Council Depot,
The Drive,
Warley
Brentwood
CM13 3BH Brentwood Housing - 2.98 ha
Masterplan opportunities (potential for mixed use) when considered along with adjoining sites 117A and 117B. Adjacent to AW on eastern boundary Type - ARW
Name - Barrack Wood aka Harts/Kents Woods
Size - 37.711702 ha
Grid ref - TQ596917

117A & 117B Ford Offices,
Eagle Way,
Warley
Brentwood
CM13 3BW Brentwood Housing and employment - 8.09 ha
Masterplan opportunities (potential for mixed use) when considered along with adjoining sites 117A and 117B.
AW on eastern boundary. Approx. 12m buffer of woodland (non-AW). Type - ARW
Name - Harts/Kents Woods
Size - 37.711702 ha
Grid ref - TQ596917

083 Land west of Warley Hill,
Pastoral Way
Warley
CM14 5HJ Brentwood Housing - 2.21 ha AW 37m to West of site Type - ASNW
Name - Clements Wood
Size - 1.490825 ha
Grid ref - TQ588921

263 Land east of Chelmsford Road,
Shenfield Brentwood Housing - 9.85 ha
Opportunity to create a masterplan along with adjoining proposed allocations (site refs: 158, 034, 087, 235 and 276). Adjacent to AW on south eastern boundary (length approx. 292m) Type - ASNW
Name - Arnold's Wood
Size - 1.56641 ha
Grid ref - TQ621961

034, 087, 235 and 276 Officer's Meadow,
Land off Alexander Lane,
Shenfield Brentwood Housing - 24.44 ha
Opportunity to create a masterplan along with adjoining proposed allocations (site refs: 158 and 263) Contains AW on eastern side of the site. Whole of this part of Arnold's Wood included to provide contiguous site with Site ref. 263 Type - ASNW
Name - Arnold's Wood
Size - 1.56641 ha
Grid ref - TQ621961

200 Dunton Hills Garden Village Brentwood Mixed Use - New Garden Village community including housing, employment, specialist accommodation, local shops and supporting infrastructure. 257 ha Contains AW Type - ASNW
Name - None
Size - 3.084541 ha
Grid ref - TQ645894


101A Brentwood Enterprise Park (Former Brentwood Employment - 35.47 ha Adjacent to AW on Type - ASNW
Name - Hobbs Hole

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.

'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.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.