The roads immediately around the site re already too crowded.

The Eagle & Child public house is a valued local amenity which includes a successful restaurant.
The impact on the environment of more housing in that busy area will be phenomenal. Schools? Doctors? Traffic?
No more houses in Shenfield Please!.

83 units per HA

Building on this site would mean loss of business and employment in the area. The building is of has some historical influences.

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'.

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.

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.