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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Remove site R19 form plan and keep as open space

Transport assessment subjective, inaccurate, flawed. Increased traffic usage would impact dangerously upon the Lane.
The proposed Priests Lane access does not comply with national guidelines and would be very dangerous.
Pollution would increase in an already over-polluted area. Priests Lane already does not comply with national
requirements regarding widths and markings of both the roadway and pavements (which are not provided on both sides of the road).
The plan omits any reference to additional infrastructure, educational and health facilities.
The Plan contradicts every General Development Criteria laid down by the Council in its own Policy 6.3.
The sites at Priests Lane lie in a flood zone and no mitigating reference is included in the Plan other than the problem will be addressed.
This corresponds with every other reference to the need for mitigation of a problem.
The Council agrees access to the sites is a serious problem but has swept that aside.
The sites have been rejected on several occasions previously and there has been no change in the nature of the sites other than traffic usage of the Lane has increased considerably.
Finally, despite dozens/hundreds of responses, technical and otherwise, the Council has never responded directly to these local resident concerns, nor has it explained the continued inclusion of these sites and the inconsistent removal of other sites.

Remove R19 from plan and keep as open space

Transport assessment subjective, inaccurate, flawed. Increased traffic usage would impact dangerously upon the Lane.
The proposed Priests Lane access does not comply with national guidelines and would be very dangerous.
Pollution would increase in an already over-polluted area. Priests Lane already does not comply with national
requirements regarding widths and markings of both the roadway and pavements (which are not provided on both sides of the road).
The plan omits any reference to additional infrastructure, educational and health facilities.
The Plan contradicts every General Development Criteria laid down by the Council in its own Policy 6.3.
The sites at Priests Lane lie in a flood zone and no mitigating reference is included in the Plan other than the problem will be addressed.
This corresponds with every other reference to the need for mitigation of a problem.
The Council agrees access to the sites is a serious problem but has swept that aside.
The sites have been rejected on several occasions previously and there has been no change in the nature of the sites other than traffic usage of the Lane has increased considerably.
Finally, despite dozens/hundreds of responses, technical and otherwise, the Council has never responded directly to these local resident concerns, nor has it explained the continued inclusion of these sites and the inconsistent removal of other sites.

Remove site R19 and maintain as an open space

Transport assessment subjective, inaccurate, flawed. Increased traffic usage would impact dangerously upon the Lane.
The proposed Priests Lane access does not comply with national guidelines and would be very dangerous.
Pollution would increase in an already over-polluted area. Priests Lane already does not comply with national
requirements regarding widths and markings of both the roadway and pavements (which are not provided on both sides of the road).
The plan omits any reference to additional infrastructure, educational and health facilities.
The Plan contradicts every General Development Criteria laid down by the Council in its own Policy 6.3.
The sites at Priests Lane lie in a flood zone and no mitigating reference is included in the Plan other than the problem will be addressed.
This corresponds with every other reference to the need for mitigation of a problem.
The Council agrees access to the sites is a serious problem but has swept that aside.
The sites have been rejected on several occasions previously and there has been no change in the nature of the sites other than traffic usage of the Lane has increased considerably.
Finally, despite dozens/hundreds of responses, technical and otherwise, the Council has never responded directly to these local resident concerns, nor has it explained the continued inclusion of these sites and the inconsistent removal of other sites.

Remove site R19 and maintain as an open space

Transport assessment subjective, inaccurate, flawed. Increased traffic usage would impact dangerously upon the Lane.
The proposed Priests Lane access does not comply with national guidelines and would be very dangerous.
Pollution would increase in an already over-polluted area. Priests Lane already does not comply with national
requirements regarding widths and markings of both the roadway and pavements (which are not provided on both sides of the road).
The plan omits any reference to additional infrastructure, educational and health facilities.
The Plan contradicts every General Development Criteria laid down by the Council in its own Policy 6.3.
The sites at Priests Lane lie in a flood zone and no mitigating reference is included in the Plan other than the problem will be addressed.
This corresponds with every other reference to the need for mitigation of a problem.
The Council agrees access to the sites is a serious problem but has swept that aside.
The sites have been rejected on several occasions previously and there has been no change in the nature of the sites other than traffic usage of the Lane has increased considerably.
Finally, despite dozens/hundreds of responses, technical and otherwise, the Council has never responded directly to these local resident concerns, nor has it explained the continued inclusion of these sites and the inconsistent removal of other sites.

Remove site R19 and keep as open space

Transport assessment subjective, inaccurate, flawed. Increased traffic usage would impact dangerously upon the Lane.
The proposed Priests Lane access does not comply with national guidelines and would be very dangerous.
Pollution would increase in an already over-polluted area. Priests Lane already does not comply with national
requirements regarding widths and markings of both the roadway and pavements (which are not provided on both sides of the road).
The plan omits any reference to additional infrastructure, educational and health facilities.
The Plan contradicts every General Development Criteria laid down by the Council in its own Policy 6.3.
The sites at Priests Lane lie in a flood zone and no mitigating reference is included in the Plan other than the problem will be addressed.
This corresponds with every other reference to the need for mitigation of a problem.
The Council agrees access to the sites is a serious problem but has swept that aside.
The sites have been rejected on several occasions previously and there has been no change in the nature of the sites other than traffic usage of the Lane has increased considerably.
Finally, despite dozens/hundreds of responses, technical and otherwise, the Council has never responded directly to these local resident concerns, nor has it explained the continued inclusion of these sites and the inconsistent removal of other sites.

Remove site R19 Priests Lane from plan

The evidence base is 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 1000 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 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 meet 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.
The 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.
Local Plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, health care 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.

Remove site R19 from the plan

The evidence base is 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 1000 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 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 meet 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.
The 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.
Local Plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, health care 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.

Remove site R19 from plan

The evidence base is 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 1000 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 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 meet 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.
The 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.
Local Plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, health care 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.

Remove site R19 from plan

The evidence base is 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 1000 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 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 meet 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.
The 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.
Local Plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, health care 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.

Remove site R19 from plan

The evidence base is 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 1000 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 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 meet 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.
The 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.
Local Plans should address not only housing but traffic concerns, health care 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.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for consulting Thames Water on the above document. Thames Water is the statutory sewerage undertaker for part of the Borough and is hence a "specific consultation body" in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2012.
Planning Policies
Thames Water support the proposed policies within the Pre-submission Local Plan. Notwithstanding this it is suggested that minor modifications are made to the text within Policies SP01 and SP04 in order to ensure that the policies are effective in relation to ensuring development is delivered alongside any necessary sewerage infrastructure reinforcement works required to support it. The proposed modifications are set out in the attached response forms. In relation to Policy NE02 the requirement for engagement with sewerage providers is welcomed. To assist with promoting early engagement it would be beneficial if a link to Thames Waters pre-application service could be provided on the Councils website. Details regarding Thames Waters pre-application service can be found at: www.thameswater.co.uk/preplanning

Site Specific Comments
We have undertaken a high level review of the proposed site allocations within the Thames Water catchment and have appended comments in relation to wastewater infrastructure issues for these sites in table below.
R04 & R05 - Ford Headquarters and Council Depot, Warley: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and
how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. R06 - Land off Nags Head Lane, Brentwood The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand
anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application.
R07 - Sow & Grow Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ
R08 - Land adjacent to Camel, Mascalls Lane, Warley
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ. We do not envisage network infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site on a basis that it won't be any surface water connection into a public foul sewer system. Connection of surface water into a public foul sewer system reduces sewer capacity and has the potential to cause flooding to existing customers. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water.
R09 - Land west of Warley Hill, Pastoral Way, Warley
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R10 - Brentwood railway station car park St James Road, Brentwood
The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. A significant assets run beneath the site. We would seek protection of these assets and may require several wayleaves /easements. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R11 - Westbury Road Car Park, Westbury Road, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a
brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R12 - Land at Hunter House, Western Road, Brentwood (Reviewed Jan18)
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ Surface water to be addressed according to the Drainage hierarchy. This being a brownfield site we expect a significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R13 Chatham Way/Crown Street Car Park, Brentwood (Reviewed Jan18)
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing.Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R14 - WILLIAM HUNTER WAY, CAR
PARK SITE, BRENTWOOD
The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead
of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be
submitted with the planning application. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R15 - Wates Way Industrial Estate,
Ongar Road, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding water supply network or water
treatment infrastructure capacity in relation
to this site/s. It is recommended that the
Developer and the Local Planning Authority
liaise with Thames Water at the earliest
opportunity to advise of the developments
phasing. Please contact Thames Water
Development Planning, either by email
Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel:
02035779998 or in writing Thames Water
Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham
Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3
9SQ
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in
addressing surface water. As this is a
brown field site, we expect significant
reduction in surface water runoff.
R16 & R17- Land off Doddinghurst Road, either side of A12, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater network or
wastewater treatment infrastructure
capability in relation to this site/s. It is
recommended that the Developer and the
Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames
Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of
the developments phasing. Please contact
Thames Water Development Planning,
either by email
Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel:
02035779998 or in writing Thames Water
Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham
Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3
9SQ
R19- Land At Priests Lane, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater infrastructure
capability in relation to this site.
Please note that the above comments
relate to the sewerage network within the
Thames Water supply area only. It is
recommended that Anglian Water are also
consulted for their comments in relation to
this development proposal. Drainage
hierarchy to be followed in addressing
surface water.
R23 - Brizes Corner Field, Blackmore
Road, Kelvedon Hatch
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater infrastructure
capability in relation to this site.
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in
addressing surface water. Please note that
the above comments relate to the sewerage
network within the Thames Water supply
area only. It is recommended that Anglian
Water are also consulted for their
comments in relation to this development
proposal.
R24 - Land off Stocks Lane, Kelvedon Hatch
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater infrastructure
capability in relation to this site.
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in
addressing surface water. Please note that
the above comments relate to the sewerage
network within the Thames Water supply
area only. It is recommended that Anglian
Water are also consulted for their
comments in relation to this development
proposal.

POLICY SP04
In relation to wastewater infrastructure it will be essential that new development is aligned with any
necessary upgrades required to ensure that the development would not overload the existing
sewerage network. Thames Water therefore support the content of Policy NE2 parts D and E and
encourage developers proposing developments to engage with them at an early stage to discuss the
wastewater infrastructure requirements for development.
The proposed policy ensures that the Local Plan is consistent with Paragraphs 20 and 41 of the NPPF.
Alongside the proposed amended text for Policy SP04, the policy will help ensure the effective
delivery of any sewerage network reinforcement works necessary to support development.

POLICY SP04
In relation to wastewater infrastructure it will be essential that new development is aligned with any
necessary upgrades required to ensure that the development would not overload the existing
sewerage network.
Thames Water support the policy in principle. However, it should be noted that new sewerage
infrastructure is delivered by the sewerage undertaker and funded through the infrastructure charge
for new developments connecting to the sewerage network. It is not therefore possible for any
necessary upgrades to be secured through CIL or S106 contributions. In order to ensure that any
necessary sewerage infrastructure reinforcement works required to support a development are
delivered ahead of the occupation of development it may be necessary for planning conditions to be
used to ensure that a development or phase of development is not occupied until the required
upgrade has been delivered. To help ensure this Policy SP04 should make reference to the use of
planning conditions as a mechanism to ensure the delivery of infrastructure alongside S106
agreements and CIL.

To address the above concern Part B of Policy SP04 could be amended to incorporate the following
wording:
"c. off-site capacity improvement works (secured through appropriate planning conditions or
agreements)"
The proposed change would ensure that planning conditions can be used to secure infrastructure
improvements necessary to support development alongside S106 agreements and CIL thereby
ensuring that the policy is effective and the Local Plan is sound.

POLICY SP01:
Thames Water support the aim of Policy SP01 (D) in relation to ensuring development does not result
in unacceptable impacts on amenity. However, as worded the policy would only be effective in
ensuring that development itself has no unacceptable impact on amenity. Consideration is also
required to be given to whether the location of proposed development is appropriate taking into
account existing sources of noise, odour and vibration to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers
of development will not be adversely affected by such issues. Where development would be affected
by an existing source of noise, odour or vibration development should only be allowed where it is
demonstrated that suitable mitigation measures can be put in place and it has been demonstrated
how these will be delivered. This would be required in order to ensure that the policy is consistent
with Paragraph 182 of the NPPF 2019.
To address the above concern it is considered that Part D(e) of Policy SP01 could be revised to read as
follows:
"e. has no unacceptable effect on health, the environment or amenity due to the release of pollutants
(such as light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit) to land, water or air, and
where the amenity of future occupiers would not be adversely impacted by existing sources of such
pollutants unless suitable mitigation measures are proposed and secured;"
The additional wording would ensure that development is not located where the amenity of future
residents would be affected by existing sources of polluntants unless suitable mitigation is provided.
This would ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with the NPPF and therefore sound.

1.0 Introduction
1.0.1 Thank you for consulting the Basildon & Brentwood Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) on the above emerging Local Development Plan (LP) Document.
1.1 In reviewing the context, content and recommendations of the LP Document and its current phase of progression, the following comments are with regard to the Healthcare provision on behalf of the STP
2.0 Existing Healthcare Position in the Emerging Plan Area
2.1 The LP Document covers the administrative area of Brentwood.
2.2 Currently, within the administrative area, healthcare provision incorporates a total of 9 GP Practices, 13 pharmacists, 9 dental surgeries, 10 Opticians, 2 community clinics and 2 community hospitals.
2.3 These are the healthcare services available that this Local Plan must take into account in formulating future strategies.

For this reason any changes to the build in the area should take into account the implementation of new pedestrian road safety measures (ie pedestrian crossings, lower car speed limit, ie 20 mph) for Priests Lane.

I regard this proposal unsound based on reasons around the safety of pedestrians using the road to get about including school children.
Traffic already regularly surpasses the 30 mph speed limit for the road - despite being a main thorough fair for pedestrians, including school children, walking to local schools in the area including Brentwood School.
I understand the lane was never meant to be a main distributary road which it has now become. Pavement width is narrow and in some cases non-existent. An increase in road traffic will inevitably increase the probability of pedestrian accidents. For this reason I believe the road design means an increase in movement brought about by the new development (and future developments such as the Elizabeth line) would compromise pedestrian safety.
For this reason any changes to the build in the area should take into account the implementation of new pedestrian road safety measures (ie pedestrian crossings, lower car speed limit, ie 20 mph) for Priests Lane.
Yours sincerely

Remove Priests Lane from plan

1. Transport assessment does not account for the increased traffic in Priests Lane that will result from the c1000 additional properties in Shenfield. Many side roads around the Priests Lane area are already gridlocked by school traffic and there is no indication as to how this might be mitigated.
2. Transport assessment does not account for the increased traffic and parking that will result from the success of the new Elizabeth Line.
3. The Plan does not address the safety issues resulting from the additional junctions from the proposed site development on the land at Priests Lane.
4. Priests Lane was never intended as a main artery between Brentwood and Shenfield and the road has width pinch points that present a significant safety issue. Road width and pavement availability do not comply with Essex design guides.
5. The Priests Lane site has previously been rejected on the basis the land was a valuable open green area. This land will become more valuable as a green open area once the Shenfield area is developed in general as proposed by the Plan.
6. The junction of Priest Lane and Middleton Hall Lane is already gridlocked with school related traffic; developing the land on the Priests Lane site will only serve to exacerbate the situation. The Plan does not offer solutions to mitigate this nor the additional local pollution that will result.
7. There is no indication how the needs of the additional residents will be met in terms of health and education.

Remove Priests Lane from plan

1. Transport assessment does not account for the increased traffic in Priests Lane that will result from the c1000 additional properties in Shenfield. Many side roads around the Priests Lane area are already gridlocked by school traffic and there is no indication as to how this might be mitigated.
2. Transport assessment does not account for the increased traffic and parking that will result from the success of the new Elizabeth Line.
3. The Plan does not address the safety issues resulting from the additional junctions from the proposed site development on the land at Priests Lane.
4. Priests Lane was never intended as a main artery between Brentwood and Shenfield and the road has width pinch points that present a significant safety issue. Road width and pavement availability do not comply with Essex design guides.
5. The Priests Lane site has previously been rejected on the basis the land was a valuable open green area. This land will become more valuable as a green open area once the Shenfield area is developed in general as proposed by the Plan.
6. The junction of Priest Lane and Middleton Hall Lane is already gridlocked with school related traffic; developing the land on the Priests Lane site will only serve to exacerbate the situation. The Plan does not offer solutions to mitigate this nor the additional local pollution that will result.
7. There is no indication how the needs of the additional residents will be met in terms of health and education.

Remove Priests Lane from plan

1. Transport assessment does not account for the increased traffic in Priests Lane that will result from the c1000 additional properties in Shenfield. Many side roads around the Priests Lane area are already gridlocked by school traffic and there is no indication as to how this might be mitigated.
2. Transport assessment does not account for the increased traffic and parking that will result from the success of the new Elizabeth Line.
3. The Plan does not address the safety issues resulting from the additional junctions from the proposed site development on the land at Priests Lane.
4. Priests Lane was never intended as a main artery between Brentwood and Shenfield and the road has width pinch points that present a significant safety issue. Road width and pavement availability do not comply with Essex design guides.
5. The Priests Lane site has previously been rejected on the basis the land was a valuable open green area. This land will become more valuable as a green open area once the Shenfield area is developed in general as proposed by the Plan.
6. The junction of Priest Lane and Middleton Hall Lane is already gridlocked with school related traffic; developing the land on the Priests Lane site will only serve to exacerbate the situation. The Plan does not offer solutions to mitigate this nor the additional local pollution that will result.
7. There is no indication how the needs of the additional residents will be met in terms of health and education.

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

Unsound:
I do not believe that a full evaluation of the environmental impact and traffic congestion has been carried out and that the evidence base is flawed due to data not being collected at busy times such as rush hour and school opening and closing times.
Priests Lane already gets very congested in the mornings and evenings as it is used as an access road by both immediate residents and people from surrounding areas. The building of 1,000 new dwellings in both Priests Lane and other nearby locations will add greatly to the congestion problem.
The Transport Assessment should have been made in Priests Lane at busy times as originally indicated by the Council.
The Plan does not fully recognize the safety of residents with new road accesses. The road is relatively narrow with a pavement only on one side. The road design is hazardous for increased traffic movements.
The planned site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions for access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
Previously the site has been rejected as it was thought to be a valuable open urban space.
No account seems to have been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, with the junction of the two being especially congested and a pollution hotspot.
Priests Lane was never intended as a main distributary road, which it has now become. It does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. There is only a pavement on one side for most of the road and in parts the road is very narrow causing difficulties to passing vehicles.
NPPF Compliant:
Traffic concerns were identified in the sustainability review with no mitigation options being specified.
The viability of an access point has not been fully evaluated or explained.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs.

Remove site R19 Priests Lane from plan

Dear Whom it concerns,

As a long standing resident in the area and the fact that I and my family have invested heavily in the Brentwood Borough over the years and paid significant amounts for a deteriorating service of public services in the area. Which no one from the local authority truly understand or wishes to admit the truth of such a decline on so many fronts roads, the excessive use of deliverer trucks by lazy consumers ordering from on line shopping channels, who are all benefiting significantly from tax breaks whilst increasing traffic to unbearable levels, impacting response time for emergency services, and general journey times. Damaging highways/ lanes,, allowing cars to be parked on the pavement throughout Brentwood hughstreet, turning what was once a nice high street into what the local authority never wanted to be which was Romford or Havering

Now with the planned development off of Priests Lane, the increase in traffic, noise, increasing the population, placing greater number of vehicles already on a road that was built and developed accordingly. The fact over the years the number of cars on the road have increased the size of vehicles have changed dramatically, on an infrastructure that is already inadequate to accommodate. Now where is the logic, in developing more housing and social housing in an area that pays probably the highest rates and taxes in the borough, placing greater noice, risks, traffic, and actually will undoubtably see an increase in crime and vulgarly over the coming years ahead.

The land is a urban spot, sure many years ago the tenants of Priests lane should have bought it when offered, however, like most things this was never on the plan or feared that the land would be used for development, like many green parts of the country once green belt areas are being turned into developments, which add zero to the local community in so many ways, only additional coffers to the local authority to do what with?

Priests Lane and the surrounding area was never developed to be a distributary road which is is now becoming. The increased pollution, noise, risks, and for what ? when already we all know the it does not even comply with the hEssex design guide with respect to road and pavement width and ant parts as you well know has caused numerous accidents over the years, and road damage which too as caused many suspensions, tyres and other damage to vehicles and cyclists.

I would like to see / hear what your thoughts are relating to this.

I fully understand, as London continues to overpopulate what central government want is push people out further but their are significant parts of land that can be developed. Why should the
C of E have so much land with convenance not to be used for development in the local area why can't this be utilised? Likewise the returning of investment to Ongar to re open the old Central line link given the land availability in that area too.

Yours

Mark Fenton

Unsound:
I do not believe that a full evaluation of the environmental impact and traffic congestion has been carried out and that the evidence base is flawed due to data not being collected at busy times such as rush hour and school opening and closing times.
Priests Lane already gets very congested in the mornings and evenings as it is used as an access road by both immediate residents and people from surrounding areas. The building of 1,000 new dwellings in both Priests Lane and other nearby locations will add greatly to the congestion problem.
The Transport Assessment should have been made in Priests Lane at busy times as originally indicated by the Council.
The Plan does not fully recognize the safety of residents with new road accesses. The road is relatively narrow with a pavement only on one side. The road design is hazardous for increased traffic movements.
The planned site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions for access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
Previously the site has been rejected as it was thought to be a valuable open urban space.
No account seems to have been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, with the junction of the two being especially congested and a pollution hotspot.
Priests Lane was never intended as a main distributary road, which it has now become. It does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. There is only a pavement on one side for most of the road and in parts the road is very narrow causing difficulties to passing vehicles.
NPPF Compliant:
Traffic concerns were identified in the sustainability review with no mitigation options being specified.
The viability of an access point has not been fully evaluated or explained.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs.

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

Unsound:
I do not believe that a full evaluation of the environmental impact and traffic congestion has been carried out and that the evidence base is flawed due to data not being collected at busy times such as rush hour and school opening and closing times.
Priests Lane already gets very congested in the mornings and evenings as it is used as an access road by both immediate residents and people from surrounding areas. The building of 1,000 new dwellings in both Priests Lane and other nearby locations will add greatly to the congestion problem.
The Transport Assessment should have been made in Priests Lane at busy times as originally indicated by the Council.
The Plan does not fully recognize the safety of residents with new road accesses. The road is relatively narrow with a pavement only on one side. The road design is hazardous for increased traffic movements.
The planned site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions for access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
Previously the site has been rejected as it was thought to be a valuable open urban space.
No account seems to have been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, with the junction of the two being especially congested and a pollution hotspot.
Priests Lane was never intended as a main distributary road, which it has now become. It does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. There is only a pavement on one side for most of the road and in parts the road is very narrow causing difficulties to passing vehicles.
NPPF Compliant:
Traffic concerns were identified in the sustainability review with no mitigation options being specified.
The viability of an access point has not been fully evaluated or explained.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs.

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

Unsound:
I do not believe that a full evaluation of the environmental impact and traffic congestion has been carried out and that the evidence base is flawed due to data not being collected at busy times such as rush hour and school opening and closing times.
Priests Lane already gets very congested in the mornings and evenings as it is used as an access road by both immediate residents and people from surrounding areas. The building of 1,000 new dwellings in both Priests Lane and other nearby locations will add greatly to the congestion problem.
The Transport Assessment should have been made in Priests Lane at busy times as originally indicated by the Council.
The Plan does not fully recognize the safety of residents with new road accesses. The road is relatively narrow with a pavement only on one side. The road design is hazardous for increased traffic movements.
The planned site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions for access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
Previously the site has been rejected as it was thought to be a valuable open urban space.
No account seems to have been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, with the junction of the two being especially congested and a pollution hotspot.
Priests Lane was never intended as a main distributary road, which it has now become. It does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. There is only a pavement on one side for most of the road and in parts the road is very narrow causing difficulties to passing vehicles.
NPPF Compliant:
Traffic concerns were identified in the sustainability review with no mitigation options being specified.
The viability of an access point has not been fully evaluated or explained.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs.

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

Unsound:
I do not believe that a full evaluation of the environmental impact and traffic congestion has been carried out and that the evidence base is flawed due to data not being collected at busy times such as rush hour and school opening and closing times.
Priests Lane already gets very congested in the mornings and evenings as it is used as an access road by both immediate residents and people from surrounding areas. The building of 1,000 new dwellings in both Priests Lane and other nearby locations will add greatly to the congestion problem.
The Transport Assessment should have been made in Priests Lane at busy times as originally indicated by the Council.
The Plan does not fully recognize the safety of residents with new road accesses. The road is relatively narrow with a pavement only on one side. The road design is hazardous for increased traffic movements.
The planned site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions for access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
Previously the site has been rejected as it was thought to be a valuable open urban space.
No account seems to have been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, with the junction of the two being especially congested and a pollution hotspot.
Priests Lane was never intended as a main distributary road, which it has now become. It does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. There is only a pavement on one side for most of the road and in parts the road is very narrow causing difficulties to passing vehicles.
NPPF Compliant:
Traffic concerns were identified in the sustainability review with no mitigation options being specified.
The viability of an access point has not been fully evaluated or explained.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs.

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

Unsound:
I do not believe that a full evaluation of the environmental impact and traffic congestion has been carried out and that the evidence base is flawed due to data not being collected at busy times such as rush hour and school opening and closing times.
Priests Lane already gets very congested in the mornings and evenings as it is used as an access road by both immediate residents and people from surrounding areas. The building of 1,000 new dwellings in both Priests Lane and other nearby locations will add greatly to the congestion problem.
The Transport Assessment should have been made in Priests Lane at busy times as originally indicated by the Council.
The Plan does not fully recognize the safety of residents with new road accesses. The road is relatively narrow with a pavement only on one side. The road design is hazardous for increased traffic movements.
The planned site does not meet relevant sustainability conditions for access, transport network, mitigation of impact on local services and unacceptable effect on health due to increased pollution.
Previously the site has been rejected as it was thought to be a valuable open urban space.
No account seems to have been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, with the junction of the two being especially congested and a pollution hotspot.
Priests Lane was never intended as a main distributary road, which it has now become. It does not comply with the Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width. There is only a pavement on one side for most of the road and in parts the road is very narrow causing difficulties to passing vehicles.
NPPF Compliant:
Traffic concerns were identified in the sustainability review with no mitigation options being specified.
The viability of an access point has not been fully evaluated or explained.
There is no additional provision for increased educational and health needs.