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.

The proposed development is too large for this site and the Plan should say whether possibilities to improve connections exist.

The site is only accessible from Priests Lane and all traffic from the site, vehicular and pedestrian must use Priests Lane. This stretch of road into Brentwood is narrow and winding (less than 5.5m in places), it is insufficient for safe cycle ways. There is a single pedestrian path, as narrow as 1m in places, with no capacity for enhanced pedestrian connections. The pavement switches sides along the roads with the crossings on blind bends, I have on more than one occasion been at risk of being struck by a car while crossing the road. It is not conducive to pedestrians with reduced mobility. Although the Plan talks of enhanced connections, there are no concrete proposals as to how this achieved. I would suggest that there are no ways of achieving this, and the Plan makes proposals which are unlikely to be viable.

This Plan should state that there may be limited or no ways to improve these connections.

The sentiment may be good, but is not based on facts with regard to this site. Priests Lane is narrow, winding, has limited pedestrian paths with no possibility of creating enhanced pedestrian and cycle connections.

This is irrelevant to this site and the Plan should recognise that it may not be possible.

There is only one pavement which is not very wide. Where the road becomes narrow the cars pass very close to pedestrians, which can be a bit worrying when they go fast. Also the crossings are on difficult bends and I have had to run to avoid being hit by cars. There are no real possibilities for providing enhanced pedestrian and cycle connections and so this statement isn't relevant. The Plan should not include general statements and aspirations when they cannot be met.

remove site from LPD; reduce egregious development size cited for Land North of Shenfield to reduce overall traffic impact to all connected areas within Shenfield

9.173 refers to improved connections to be maximised to create a development where alternative forms of transport to the private car (walking, cycling and public transport) are prioritised. Given the current width of the road, expected to accommodate wider traffic flow from further 1000 house development in Shenfield - since Priests Lane is a through road from Shenfield North to Beentwood / A127 - it is not clear how additional "connections" for pedestrian and cyclists can be provided without a detrimental impact on the increased traffic flow expected, thereby exarcerbating an already stressed proposal from increased traffic flow alone.