The land at Priests Lane should be removed from the Local Development Plan.

Unsound: I consider the plan to be unsound as the evidence base if flawed.
* The Transport Assessment is inaccurate as it has excluded traffic along Priests Lane and was taken at times which excluded a large proportion of school traffic, despite Council assurances that a traffic assessment would be done for Priests Lane.
* The Transport Assessment does not account for the increased usage of Priests Lane from the proposed development of 1,000 houses in Shenfield travelling to the A127, nor does it account for the impact of the Elizabeth Line.
* The Plan fails to address safety of residents: the technical submissions of residents that new road accesses along Priests Lane are hazardous have not been addressed, nor concerns that the road design is dangerous for increased traffic movements.
* The site does not met relevant sustainability conditions, notably access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
* The Priests Lane sites have been rejected previously because the land was deemed a valuable open urban space.
* No account has been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, the junction of which is a pollution hotspot.
* Priests Lane was never meant to be a main distributary road which it has not become. Residents have pointed out that as such it does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width.
NPPF Compliant: Local plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.
* The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern, but no mitigation options have been identified.
* No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.
* When considered against reasonable alternatives these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for the enhancement of infrastructure as a result of development.
* There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs, the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands and there is already a low level of GPs per head. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend, exacerbating the already dire traffic situation.
* The land at Priests Lane should be removed from the Local Development Plan as I do not consider the Local Plan to be sound or legally compliant.

Remove Priests Lane from plan

Further housing in this area is not sustainable as Priests Lane is a very narrow road. Along with Friars Avenue, it is already used as a rat run between Brentwood and Shenfield and is extremely dangerous with its current traffic - this development would worse the situation. These roads cannot take any more traffic - indeed steps should be taken to reduce traffic. Any development here would remove another small lung of green space, which is gradually being totally eroded in Shenfield.

Remove site R19 Priests Lane from plan

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past few years and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the danger of even more such incidents . The technical submissions of residents have shown that the present accesses to the sites are hazardous, in particular that at No. 61a which has an inadequate line of site in one direction and is almost opposite the junction with Glanthams road.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall which are not infrequent, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Lane and St Andrews Place suffer surface flooding. At times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.
For all the above reasons the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 should be removed from the current Local Development Plan.

Remove site R19 from plan (Priests Lane).

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past few years and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the danger of even more such incidents . The technical submissions of residents have shown that the present accesses to the sites are hazardous, in particular that at No. 61a which has an inadequate line of site in one direction and is almost opposite the junction with Glanthams road.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall which are not infrequent, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Lane and St Andrews Place suffer surface flooding. At times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.
For all the above reasons the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 should be removed from the current Local Development Plan.

Remove site R19 from plan Priests Lane

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past few years and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the danger of even more such incidents . The technical submissions of residents have shown that the present accesses to the sites are hazardous, in particular that at No. 61a which has an inadequate line of site in one direction and is almost opposite the junction with Glanthams road.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall which are not infrequent, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Lane and St Andrews Place suffer surface flooding. At times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.
For all the above reasons the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 should be removed from the current Local Development Plan.

Remove R19 Priests Lane from plan

1. Road access, The access to the sites can only be from Priests Lane through St, Andrews Place, Bishop Walk or the present track at 61a Priests Lane. Priests Lane already carries far more traffic than it is suited to being a narrow two lane road with blind curves and a sharp bend at the St, Andrews Place junction. There have been at least six major Road Traffic Accidents on this road in the past few years and the increase in traffic which the proposed development would generate would greatly exacerbate the danger of even more such incidents . The technical submissions of residents have shown that the present accesses to the sites are hazardous, in particular that at No. 61a which has an inadequate line of site in one direction and is almost opposite the junction with Glanthams road.
2. Pollution. In addition to the increase in the volume of traffic using Priests Lane, the development would also produce a very significant rise in the air pollution levels from car exhaust emissions in the vicinity. Such levels already exceed E.U.limits at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane, due no doubt to the long traffic tail-backs which occur around this junction at peak times. The inevitable light pollution associated with such a housing development would illuminate what is at present a relatively dark area of night sky thus spoiling a facility regularly used by local amateur astronomers.
3. Local Services. Public Transport. At present there is no public transport such as a bus service in that part of Priests Lane at the proposed development site for very good reasons. That part of the lane can just allow two vehicles of the Range Rover type to pass in opposite directions in safety leaving no scope for anything wider such as a bus. The footpath which is only on one side of the lane is so narrow that pedestrians including mothers with babies in buggies are only inches away from the fast moving traffic.
4. Surface Flooding. At times of heavy rainfall which are not infrequent, Priests Lane, Middleton Hall Lane and St Andrews Place suffer surface flooding. At times of less heavy rainfall, parts of gardens adjoining the proposed development site can remain under water for several days due to the very poor surface drainage in the area. It is reported that some years ago when a previous development was under consideration the plan was abandoned as the site was deemed too wet for the purpose.
5. Environment. The proposed development will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and will occupy what is currently designated Protected Open Space.
For all the above reasons the development of Priests Lane sites 044 and 178 should be removed from the current Local Development Plan.

I would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

I would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I would like to add my objection to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons, most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.

These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PLNRA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.

The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.

The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane. Air pollution in the area is already an issue, particularly at the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane and the junction of Middleton Hall Lane and the A128 Ingrave Road, and will only be made worse by the proposed development.

The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the site and it cannot be guaranteed.

The PLNRA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored. Without a viable means of access, the site is not capable of being delivered and so should be removed from the DLP.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space. It was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of the schools, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PLNRA concluded:-

Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I support the PLNRA in its request to participate in the oral stage of the EiP and would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

I would ask the Council to review all of the information that has been compiled and submitted by the PLNRA, since much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.

I object to the inclusion of the Priests Lane site in the Local Development Plan for several reasons most significantly road safety, traffic congestion, air pollution, site access and the loss of a Protected Urban Space.
These reasons and more have been fully investigated by the PRNLA who have supplied the council with detailed information to back up the arguments against developing this site but this information seems to have been ignored.
The LDP includes a number of features which are simply a work of fiction, for instance, the idea of a cycle path has been cut and pasted on numerous sites but Priests Lane is far too narrow to allow pavement on both sides of the road in some places and there is no room for a cycle path.
The traffic in Priests Lane is either backed up at rush hour or a dangerous rat run at other times, there have been numerous accidents along the road and there doesn't seem to be any provision in the plan to cope with an increase in traffic from various new housing in the area as well as the proposed development in Priests Lane.
The plan has suggested that some of the housing should be allocated for the over 50's. This is meant to be a strategy to help reduce the amount of traffic flowing onto Priests Lane at peak times but fails to consider that the retirement age is now 67. In the case of a nursing home, there will still be staff and visitors coming and going throughout the day. But even if this type of housing were to be approved, it is merely a suggested use of the sight and it cannot be guaranteed.
The PRNLA has given the Council detailed technical evidence clearly showing that the access from Priests Lane to the site does not meet road design guidelines and is unsafe. This issue has not been addressed in the LDP, in fact it has been completely ignored.
Using the site would be a failure to preserve a Protected Open Urban Space, it was previously used as a school playing field. There are two schools backing onto the site and both will require land to expand onto in the future and once this site is developed it is lost forever. The area still requires room for other uses, not just housing. Building housing on every plot available does not allow for expansion of school, it doesn't allow for additional services to be added to the area.
In their submission the PRNLA concluded:-
Brentwood Borough Council should not remove the designation as Protected Open Urban Space for the land at Priests Lane (R19) because of the significant traffic safety and congestion concerns as well as practical difficulties related to surface water. The land should not be released for residential development, as the Council has not provided evidence that the land is not surplus to needs for playing fields or open space, and/or educational expansion for the adjacent schools. The land should as far as possible be retained as open space (in line with previous planning decisions), and the Council should work with the landowner to obtain access for community use, in line with Council recommendations in 2005.
I support the PRNLA in their request to participate in the oral part of the EiP and would ask the Council to look at all the information that has been submitted by the PRNLA, much time and effort has gone into thoroughly investigating all the issues involved in this proposed development.

Yours Sincerely,

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to provide my opinion on the recently updated Local Development Plan which has been published.

I am a resident of West Horndon which is part of the major redevelopment you would like to carry out in the South of the Borough. As I mentioned in my previous response in August 2013 there is no sign of any joined up thinking or obvious forethought in your redevelopment proposals. The plan to initiate Dunton Garden Village as the major residential housing problem solution is obviously a poorly thought out attempt to shove the problem as far away from Brentwood as possible. As you must surely be aware the A128 and A127 are already extremely congested and at the limit of sustainability. There are no plans to improve the A128 despite advanced plans for a second Thames Crossing which can only worsen the situation. Placing a small town of 500 plus houses directly on these roads is a disastrous idea, especially with all the road improvements taking place on the A12 corridor. Where is the joined up thinking in our Borough Council Planning Department? The same again with railway connectivity. The West Horndon to Fenchurch Street line is already at capacity with no scheduled improvements planned in the near future. However, at Shenfield there will be the Elizabeth Line connection and major developments planned but obviously only for the elite selected few. The big housing area is at the wrong side of Brentwood obviously!! There is an obvious error here isn't there? To put all this housing stock so far away and joined to this major transport hub by the already congested A128 road is frankly very poor planning. The improved transport will only benefit Shenfield and local areas nearby.

Bus transport in West Horndon is already poor service and the village children now have to be funded by parents to get to school... This is a very poor state of affairs which will be made worse by the 300 extra houses planned for this village. To live in West Horndon you must have a car but the already badly congested A127 and A128 make travel anywhere difficult and the Dunton Village proposal will make this situation far worse. This is an appalling transport strategy.

As you should be very aware West Horndon and Dunton are adjacent to Basildon and Thurrock Boroughs. Both Boroughs are also considering the Dunton area for their own housing expansion needs so Dunton Village could end up as Dunton Town. Both councils have stated that there has been very limited consultation about perceived infrastructure or transport planning and do not seem to be very much in favour of Brentwood Borough future local development proposals. This is at odds with the statement in your LDP about local joint consultations with neighbouring boroughs. Again, this is symptomatic of a lack of joined up thinking in the planning process.

No surveys or work have been carried out prior to the issue of the LDP with reference to the flooding. West Horndon and Dunton are in a geographical dip between higher ground in all directions. In the past we have experienced several floods including my own property. It is not sensible to put all this additional housing in flood prone areas and to consider doing this without even basic land surveys is poor practise to say the very least.

In your proposal you mention people altering the gardens to accommodate off-road parking is hazardous because of rainwater re-direction but you have no future plans to even begin investigation into building a substantial number of houses on a flood plain risk area! Again poor planning.

In previous neighbourhood consultations Brentwood residents have stated their priorities which were:-
a) protection of the green belt
b) protection of local character
c) Re-use of existing buildings in Brentwood Town Hutton and Pilgrims Hatch

It seems that the residents views only matter if they comply with the councils wishes but can be ignored if they do not.

The Local Development plan rides rough-shod over residents views as you plan to build a small town in the GreenBelt, because it is far away from Brentwood Town and is much easier than re-using brownfield sites throughout the borough which residents want done and specifically requested their feedback to the council. This plan will also change the local character as it will put a small town in Dunton and change West Horndon from a small village into a small town used as a stopping off point for the Dunton Town residents. This is a major hypocrisy to the espoused Borough statement of a Borough of Villages. Obviously this does not apply South of Brentwood Town.

The Green Belt around West Horndon and Dunton is meant to prevent the urban sprawl of London creeping along the A127 and A13 corridors. This is the most important part of the green belt in the whole country due to the extreme pressure on housing needs in the South East of England. To state that the Green Belt area around the A12/Shenfield area is somehow more important or of greater character is risible and frankly insults the intelligence. The A12 improvements have already affected that part of the Green Belt whereas the area around West Horndon is so far unaffected but will be completely ripped apart by this local plan. This was the major point mentioned in residents feedback to the Council and should be the number one priority. It is the councils job as elected officials to carry out the wishes of residents not to completely ignore them when it does not fit into the Councils plans. Infringement of the Green Belt should be the very last option not the easy get out!

What happened to the original spatial Option One for centralised growth in and around Brentwood Town Centre with re-use of Brownfield sites and expansion of the Town?

What happened to spatial Option Two for a transport corridor led growth along the A12 and A128 area of the Borough?

Were they just planning pie in the sky and a bit too difficult to carry out with a much easier option being to move the problem somewhere else a bit farther away?

This Local Development Plan represents a poorly thought out strategy reflecting a lack of joined up thinking. It bears no consideration of residents wishes but shows a desire to move the problems elsewhere. There is a distinct lack of consideration for the ideals of Village Life.

There has been little consideration given to the effects on neighbouring Boroughs or residents of areas affected by the poorly thought out proposals.

Over the whole consultation period scant regard has been paid to residents feedback because it does not fit in with the Council Planning Departments way of thinking.

All in all a very poor plan which we, the Borough residents do not want.

Regards

Typed by Joanne Craske
Dictated by Kevin Craske.

Remove site R19 from plan

Local plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.
1. The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern but no mitigation options have been identified.
2. No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.
3. When considered against reasonable alternatives these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for the enhancement of infrastructure as a result of development.
4. There is no provision for increased educational need. The expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend exacerbating the already dire traffic situation
There is no provision for increased health needs. There is already a low level of GPs per head.

Remove site R19 from plan

Local plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.
1. The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern but no mitigation options have been identified.
2. No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.
3. When considered against reasonable alternatives these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for the enhancement of infrastructure as a result of development.
4. There is no provision for increased educational need. The expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend exacerbating the already dire traffic situation
There is no provision for increased health needs. There is already a low level of GPs per head.

Remove site R19 from plan

Local plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.
1. The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern but no mitigation options have been identified.
2. No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.
3. When considered against reasonable alternatives these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for the enhancement of infrastructure as a result of development.
4. There is no provision for increased educational need. The expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend exacerbating the already dire traffic situation
There is no provision for increased health needs. There is already a low level of GPs per head.

Remove site R19 from plan

Local plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.
1. The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern but no mitigation options have been identified.
2. No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.
3. When considered against reasonable alternatives these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for the enhancement of infrastructure as a result of development.
4. There is no provision for increased educational need. The expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend exacerbating the already dire traffic situation
There is no provision for increased health needs. There is already a low level of GPs per head.

Remove site R19 from plan

- Transport assessment is inaccurate as it has excluded traffic along priests lane and was taken at times which excluded a large proportion of school traffic.
- Site does not meet sustainability conditions, notably access, transport network and mitigation of impact on local services.

Remove site R19 from plan

- Transport assessment is inaccurate as it has excluded traffic along priests lane and was taken at times which excluded a large proportion of school traffic.
- Site does not meet sustainability conditions, notably access, transport network and mitigation of impact on local services.

Priests Lane is a very narrow residential lane with only one pavement side at many places and increased houses and traffic will have a detrimental effect - it will be busier and more dangerous. The site doesn't meet relevant sustainability conditions such as access, transport network, impact on local services as well as increased pollution. This plan has previously been rejected due to being valuable open urban space which is still the case.

Remove site R19 from plan

Priests Lane is a very narrow residential lane with only one pavement side at many places and increased houses and traffic will have a detrimental effect - it will be busier and more dangerous. The site doesn't meet relevant sustainability conditions such as access, transport network, impact on local services as well as increased pollution. This plan has previously been rejected due to being valuable open urban space which is still the case.

Remove site R19 from plan

The evidence base is flawed and unsound:

Priests Lane was never meant to be a main distributary road, which it has now become. Residents have pointed out that as such it does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width.

The Transport Assessment does not account for the increased usage of Priests Lane from the proposed development of 1,000 houses in Shenfield travelling to the A127, nor does it account for the impact of the Elizabeth Line.

The Transport Assessment is inaccurate as it has excluded traffic along Priests Lane and was taken at a time which excluded a large proportion of school traffic, despite Council assurances that a traffic assessment would be done for Priests Lane.

No account has been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, the junction of which is a pollution hot spot.

The plan fails to address safety of residents : the technical submissions of residents that new road accesses along Priests Lane are hazardous have not been addressed, nor concerns that the road design is dangerous for increased traffic movements.

NPPF Non-compliant: :Local Plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, healthcare and education needs.

The sustainability review refers to traffic as a concern, but no mitigation options have been identified.

No specific or robust argument has been made that a viable access point is possible.

When considered against reasonable alternatives, these sites cannot be deemed justified and there is nowhere in the plan which allows for enhanced infrastructure as a result of development.

There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs, the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current demands and there is already a low of GPs per head. Schools further afield which may have space will require a car journey to attend, exacerbating the already dire situation.