I support the reduction. Following the consultation responses it was clear there are concerns about the impact of traffic from additional dwellings at Priest lane. This reduction should reduce the commensurate number of vehicle movements but I accept this is a Brown Field site so would be very difficult not to accept some principle of development

provided 45 homes built are two bedroomed bungalows for older residents

Remove R19 from plan

You have requested my comments on the LDP for housing sites across Brentwood from your meeting the 11th. Sept. We have already submitted our concerns reference your first proposal for the Priests Lane site and these still stand. We have been informed that with your plans to reduce the number of housing units you are considering additional entry and exit points. If this is correct could you please confirm this and inform me of these plans so that I can give comments. With out this information I am unable to give any further comments.
Confirmation that the detail of site entry and exit points was not within in this consultation.
As the addendum only references site numbers and no other changes being considered I cannot comment as the consultation is incomplete.

This site is more suitable for residential development than more remote locations (EG Policies R25 and R26) and therefore should be built on before remote locations.

The number of houses should be increased back to the original plan for 75.

This is a site surrounded by existing housing, on a main road, and next to a railway line. It has the capacity to take the full allocation of 75 homes.

No change proposed

Question to the Council: Does Regulation 19 give details of any proposed changes to the site entry and exit points as requested?
Answer from the Council: The Addendum only addresses site numbers.
As the Addendum only references site numbers and no other site changes being considered I cannot comment as the consultation is incomplete.

I am particularly concerned about the lack of evidential base for the number of houses in the proposals and that no change has been made to the wording of the access points, which I feel pose a health and safety risk.

The change to the sites at Priests Lane is a reduction in houses from 'around' 75 to 'around' 45. However this number still has no evidential base and no change has been made to the wording of access points which we feel is a major issue, believing that access onto Priests Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed.

In addition, the change to the sites at Priests Lane is a reduction in dwellings from 'around 75' to 'around 45'. However, this number still has no evidential base and no change has been made to the working of access points which I feel is a major issue, believing that access onto Priests Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed.

Would you please accept this email as representing my permission for you to forward my observations and objections to the proposals relating to the Priests Lane developments in the Local Development Plan (Regulation 19), and previous comments during the various consultation processes to the Planning Inspectorate and Programme Officer.

In addition, the change to the sites at Priests Lane is a reduction in dwellings from 'around 75' to 'around 45'. However, this number still has no evidential base and no change has been made to the working of access points which I feel is a major issue, believing that access onto Priests Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments on the Addendum of Focused changes the pre-submission local plan.
The initial statement that it is proposed to build an additional 70 homes at Dunton Hills Garden Village does not match up with the itemised changes. There are 70 homes being relocated from the Shenfield area and a further 20 homes from Blackmore Village area. That is a total of 90 homes. Where are the other 20 homes going to be located?
My specific comments on each proposal are detailed below;
1) Policy ROI
It appears that the Local Plan is to put all the homes it possibly can into Dunton Hills Garden Village at the expense of our local environment and habitat and flood risk rather than impose such a huge number of 70 homes in Shenfield. Obviously the environment and habitat in an urban area is far more important than green belt! Dunton Hills Garden Village is growing like Topsy and will be Dunton Hills Garden Town!
2) Policy R18
The reduction in the number of homes from 55 to 35 (almost 40%) in the Crescent Drive area is purportedly due to i) inconsistency of character, ii) implications on traffic and safety, iii) Development on an urban open space, iv) environment, habitat and flood impact.
1) I understand that Shenfield is an affluent area so any extra homes are unwelcome and out of character unless they are large and expensive. The need for homes must outweigh this and the council must find a way to build homes where needed, not where residents object on this basis. This is NIMBYISM of the highest order and should NOT be allowed. Come on Brentwood do the right thing by ALL borough residents not just the rich few!!
2) I find Crescent Drive to be a quiet almost traffic free area when I go to the Community Hospital so where is the traffic coming from? It is within 1 mile of the A12 so where is the issue with highway access? This sounds like a made up excuse to give padding to this reduction of home build in the area. It is nonsense.
3) How can a suburban area have an environment and habitat and flood risk which is of more importance than Green Belt? Our area of green belt is under severe risk as it is with the Thames tunnel plan and Brentwood council are making matters worse by adding to this pressure. In a Green Belt borough emphasis should be on urban/suburban new build not on using green belt as an easy option. Why are Shenfield opinions more important than that of West Horndon opinions?
All these justifications appear fatuous to me and this proposed change should be rescinded as the council and planning department appear to be making fools of themselves. These are not serious justifications for a re-think, more like a plan to try and shift as much new build as possible as far away from Brentwood Town as possible. When all recent road improvements are on the A12 corridor and the high speed link on rail is coming to Shenfield surely it makes sense to put as many new homes as possible in that area which is also rich in the settlement hierarchy with good transport links, shops and open areas. So again there in an obvious disconnect with no joined up thinking!
3) Policy R19
There is a proposal reduction in scheduled new build homes from 75 to 45 (40%), curiously exactly the same percentage reduction. The same items are stated as the justification for its reduction. My previous comment on POlicy R18 are also very relevant on this proposal too. I find it discriminatory, disgraceful and highly offensive that Shenfield residents have a greater voice than I appear to. They will now have only 80 homes scheduled for build where as our small village will have hundreds more and a new town on our doorstep. The A128 and A127 are already at capacity and entry and exit from our village is already time consuming and risky. Adding more homes and risk. Still Shenfield will be safer I suppose.
4) Policy R25 & R26
Reductions in Blackmore Village from 70 to 50 (30%). The statements for justification are i) inconsistency with character, ii) impact on local services, iii) disagreement with settlement hierarchy, iv) Green Belt development and flood risk.
1) In a large village it is difficult to understand how a total of 70 new homes can make too much difference. There are already a large variety in the types of homes in Blackmore so again how can new build be out of character? What can a reduction of 20 homes do to improve the village character that much? It does not make sense and again appears to be NIMBYISM! Does the council think a token gesture will do in this case? That is how it appears.
2) The impact on local services of 50 homes is not much different to that from 70 homes. Blackmore has good local services with a rail link to Brentwood and this was part of the reasons given for locating hundreds of homes in West Horndon. Road access is good with easy access to the A414, A12,M25 and M11. It has 3 public houses, 2 village halls, sports and social club, football and cricket pitches and a village shop with a farmers market at weekends. Hardly hard done by and surely it could easily take 70 homes without any impact at all. So this part of the justification does not ring true!
3) What is the basis of the settlement hierarchy? Small population areas tend to provide only low order services such as Post Office and Newsagents, not 3 public houses, 2 village halls etc. This is a ridiculous statement as a justification.
West Horndon Village has 1 public house, 1 village hall, no sports and social clubs or cricket pitches etc but is going to have almost 500 extra homes with no improvement in service or facilities. What about our settlement hierarchy? We do not appear to matter to the council and are not as important a village as Blackmore obviously. Again discriminatory, disgusting and very insulting to residents of West Horndon. Where is our value? We pay the same tax to support the council but are obviously second class citizens.
As a separate issue, why has the number of homes on brownfields sites reduced from 1152 to 1132?. There is no mention of where, when or why! Still, I expect they will be relocated to Dunton Hills Garden Town obviously.
All these proposals appear to token gestures pandering to the affluent areas of Brentwood. They show no joined up thinking, there are no explanations of traffic resolution unless you are in the Shenfield area of course.
In my opinion they are poorly thought out and are simply not justifications but excuses for a bad plan which will be pushed through despite protests from residents and tax payers. It is in a mess still!

Keep the number of proposed dwellings to be developed on this site to 75.

The number of proposed dwellings should not be reduced. This site, being fully enclosed on all 4 sides by building / major transport links, is much more appropriate for development compared to other greenfield and agriculturally viable sites included in the LDP. For example, the additional 30 dwellings that could be built here, would go part of the way towards enabling the removal of sites R25 and R26 from the plan.

remove R19 from plan

My response to the latest LP consultation which closes on 26 November 2019 is as follows:
The change to the sites at Priests Lane is a reduction in houses from 'around' 75 to 'around' 45, however, this number still has no evidential base. No change has been made to the wording of access points which I feel is a major issue, believing that access onto Priests Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed. The original application for 8 houses in Bishop Walk over 20 years ago was turned down which led to the number of houses restricted to 5 houses to comply with the access requirements at that time. By the same token, the same reasoning should apply even more so to 45 houses considering the significant increase in traffic and pollution.
In the interest of restoring and increasing the playing fields for the adjacent Hogarth Primary School, which recently had its playing field area halved whilst doubling its pupil population, as well as for Endeavour School which also adjoins the sites, then these sites must be removed from the LP and set aside for this purpose. This is also In line with government policy to provide for the health of our nation's children and for their future wellbeing.
With the rapid expansion of development in the rest of the borough, it would be forward thinking to set aside land for the inevitable need for more school places in the not too distant future.

Remove site R19 from the plan

Re: Paragraph 2 (c) Policy R19
We appreciate the reduction in house numbers from 75 to 45 addresses our concerns about inappropriate house density. However, it fails to address other concerns about the safety of a new access road and the suitability of Bishop Walk of an access considering the limited road infrastructure of Priests Lane and the already high traffic levels which will increase as a result of the various new housing developments in the area.
It also does not reflect the Council addition of multiple access points.
We think our existing objections are still valid and want them to be submitted along with the LDP, and continue to request a hearing.
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association

Remove R19 from the plan

Dear Sir or Madam,
As a resident in Bishop Walk I can confirm that I wholeheartedly agree with the comments shown below in the message sent to you earlier today from our association.
Bishop Walk is a quiet close with 6 residential homes on both sides with open views to natural landscapes. Each property has off road parking. Were Bishop Walk to be used as an access and or exit point this would be unfair and totally unacceptable and I strongly object to this proposal.
Safety and congestion issues should be properly addressed and abandoning the whole project should be seriously considered.
Kind regards
Gavin Hennessy
Sent: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 12:03
Subject: Comments on the Addendum of focussed changes to the LDP
Re: Paragraph 2 (c) Policy R19

We appreciate the reduction in house numbers from 75 to 45 addresses our concerns about inappropriate house density. However, it fails to address other concerns about the safety of a new access road and the suitability of Bishop Walk of an access considering the limited road infrastructure of Priests Lane and the already high traffic levels which will increase as a result of the various new housing developments in the area.
It also does not reflect the Council addition of multiple access points.
We think our existing objections are still valid and want them to be submitted along with the LDP, and continue to request a hearing.
Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association

re: paragraph 2 (c) Policy R19
The proposed change to the sites at Priests Lane from 'around' 75 to 'around' 45 is still unacceptable without any evidence to back up the latest proposed number of houses. In light of this, I'm extremely concerned that no change has been made to the wording of access points to reflect the change in number of proposed houses which is a major issue, considering the original application for 8 houses in Bishop Walk over 20 years ago was turned down because of inadequate access. If 8 houses were deemed to be 3 too many for adequate access back then, what evidence has been presented in the intervening years to allow for the approval of 45 houses to comply with the access requirements? Bearing in mind the traffic is much higher now and the level of Nitrous oxide was found to be above safe limits 3 years ago! Please could you send such evidence in your response.
In order to restore and increase the playing fields for the adjacent Hogarth Primary School, who recently had to half its playing field area to double its pupil population, as well as for Endeavour School which also adjoins the sites, then these sites should be removed from the LP and set aside for this purpose. This is also In line with government policy to provide for the health of our nation's children and for their future wellbeing.
With the rapid expansion of development in the rest of the borough, it seems logical to set aside land for the inevitable need for more school places in the not too distant future. Once these houses are built on land adjacent to these 2 schools, it would be impossible for both schools to expand to meet the needs of the growing population.

Remove R19 from the plan

Re: Paragraph 2 (c) Policy R19
While the reduction in the number of homes is to be welcomed, I still do not feel that concerns regarding the safety of access and the impact the numerous Shenfield developments will have on the already high traffic levels along Priests Lane, have been addressed.
It is noted that a subsequent meeting of the council resolved that the site would require multiple access points although that is still not included in the addendum of focussed changes posted on the website.
I believe the existing objections are still valid and wish them to be submitted along with the LDP.

Remove R19 from the Plan

Re: Paragraph 2 (c) Policy R19

We appreciate the reduction in house numbers from 75 to 45 addresses our concerns about inappropriate house density. However, it fails to address other concerns about the safety of a new access road and the suitability of Bishop Walk of an access considering the limited road infrastructure of Priests Lane and the already high traffic levels which will increase as a result of the various new housing developments in the area.

It also does not reflect the Council addition of multiple access points.

We think our existing objections are still valid and want them to be submitted along with the LDP, and continue to request a hearing.

Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association

The change to the site at Priests Lane is a reduction in houses from around 75 to around 45. However this number still has no evidential base and no change has been made to the wording of the access point which I feel is a major issue believing that access onto Priest Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed.

Remove R19 from plan

The change to the site at Priests Lane is a reduction from around 75 to around 45. However this number still has no evidential base a no change has been made to the wording of access points which I feel is a major issue, believing that access onto Priests Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed.

The change to the site at Priests Lane is a reduction in houses from around 75 vto around 45. However this number still has no evidential base and no change has been made to the wording of access points which I feel is a major issue believing that access onto Priests Lane poses a health and safety risk which has not been addressed.

A much better solution would be to reprovide the units lost from the Shenfield and Blackmore allocations on sustainable sites in and around Brentwood. The site at Spital Lane is an ideal candidate, being located on the edge of the town close to services and facilities, having minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and as per the Environment Agency comments on the most recent planning application, being capable of accommodating six houses without any risk of flooding. We therefore advocate that Spital Lane be allocated for housing in the emerging plan, along with other suitable smaller sites identified in the SHLAA, to make up the housing numbers lost in Shenfield and Blackmore.

The proposed reduction in housing numbers in Shenfield and Blackmore is problematical for two reasons.
First, because it reduces housing numbers in sustainable settlements where growth is needed, and puts them in a less sustainable location.
Second, because in relocating the units to the proposed strategic allocation at Denton Hills, the provision of these units will inevitably occur later in the plan period, when the focus should be on early provision to address the current housing land supply shortfall.
A much better solution would be to reprovide the units lost from the Shenfield and Blackmore allocations on sustainable sites in and around Brentwood.
The site at Spital Lane is an ideal candidate, being located on the edge of the town close to services and facilities, having minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and as per the Environment Agency comments on the most recent planning application, being capable of accommodating six houses without any risk of flooding.
We therefore advocate that Spital Lane be allocated for housing in the emerging plan, along with other suitable smaller sites identified in the SHLAA, to make up the housing numbers lost in Shenfield and Blackmore.

Object to any reduction on this site.

Town centre site with good links.

Reduction should be reversed this is exactly where new homes should be built, walking distance to Shenfield station

Town centre near station with a large demand for homes in this area

We note that it is proposed to decrease the amount of housing on this allocation site to address comments made as part of the previous consultation. As an infrastructure provider we closely monitor housing growth in our region to align our planned investment with additional demand for water recycling infrastructure. Therefore we have no comments to make relating to the focused change to Policy R19.

My response to the latest LP consultation ending 26 November 2019:

The change to the sites at Priests Lane is a reduction from 'around' 75 to 'around' 45, but it is concerning there is still no evidence for the proposed number of houses. Moreover, no change has been made to the wording of access points which is a major issue, considering the original application for 8 houses in Bishop Walk over 20 years ago was turned down because of inadequate access, which led to the number of houses restricted to 5 houses to comply with the access requirements at that time, bearing in mind the traffic was no way as heavy and polluting as it is now.

In the interest of restoring and increasing the playing fields for the adjacent Hogarth Primary School, which recently had its playing field area halved whilst doubling its pupil population, as well as for Endeavour School which also adjoins the sites, then these sites should be removed from the LP and set aside for this purpose in line with government policy to provide for the health of our nation's children and their future wellbeing.

With the rapid expansion of development in the rest of the borough, it seems prudent to set aside land to keep up with the inevitable need for more school places in the not too distant future. Once these houses are built on land adjacent to these 2 schools, it would be impossible for both schools to expand to meet the needs of the borough's growing population.

Re: Paragraph 2 (c) Policy R19

I appreciate the reduction in house numbers from 75 to 45 addresses my concerns about inappropriate house density, however it fails to address other ongoing concerns about the safety of a new access road and the suitability of Bishop Walk as an access considering the limited road infrastructure of Priests Lane and the already high traffic levels which will increase as a result of the various new housing developments in the area.

It also does not reflect the Council addition of multiple access points.

I think my existing objections to any development of this land are still valid and want them to be submitted along with the LDP, and continue to request a hearing.

Kind regards

These representations are submitted in response to the publication of:
Brentwood Borough Council Local Plan Consultation on Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)
We object to the following change to the Pre-Submission Local Plan:
* Policy R01 (I) (Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation): Increase from "at least 2,770 homes in the plan period".
We support the following changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan:
* Policy R18 (Land off Crescent Drive, Shenfield): Reduction from "around 55" to "around 35 homes".
* Policy R19 (Land at Priests Lane, Shenfield): Reduction from "around 75" to "around 45 homes".
* Policy R25 (Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore): Reduction from "around 40" to around "30 homes".
* Policy R26 (Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore): Reduction from "around 30" to "around 20 homes".
We support the reduction in housing numbers at the allocation sites in Shenfield and Blackmore, as this is justified by the evidence base.
However, we object to the re-distribution of the 70 dwellings to the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) allocation, because it would mean that fewer homes would be delivered in the early years of the plan. The reliance on DHGV to deliver such a large proportion of the Borough's housing need within the early years of the plan is too great, particularly when smaller sites are available, some of which are brownfield.
Larger sites often take longer to deliver housing, because they typically have complex ownership structures and require significant investment in infrastructure. Research published by consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (Start to Finish: How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver? November 2016) found that for sites of over 2,000 dwellings, the average timeframe between the validation date of the planning application and the delivery of the first dwelling was just under seven years. This compares with just under three years for smaller sites of up to 99 dwellings and therefore, whilst it is justified to reduce the housing allocation at the sites in Shenfield and Blackmore, the 70 dwellings should be re-distributed to suitable smaller developments rather than being added to DHGV.
Smaller sites are often able to come forward more quickly than larger sites because they are typically in single ownership and require less investment in infrastructure. They also attract smaller, more local housebuilding companies that would not be present on larger sites, enable more early deliveries and constitute a more sustainable approach towards meeting the housing need.
Brownfield sites should also be prioritised in line with the requirements of the NPPF, which states in paragraph 137 that:
'before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development'.
As a result, brownfield land should be utilised, with greenfield land being released only when all sustainably located, available and deliverable sites have been identified as allocations.
In contrast, Brentwood Borough Council propose relying entirely on the delivery of a single, large, greenfield site to be able to demonstrate and maintain a five-year supply in the early plan period - a method that has been criticised by several inspectors at Local Plan Examinations in Braintree District, Tendring District and Colchester Borough Council in relation to North Essex Garden Communities.
Due to the location of the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation, a significant proportion of Brentwood's housing would be located on the Borough boundary with Basildon. The settlement would adjoin Basildon's Green Belt and although it was once intended for both Councils to locate settlements in this area, Basildon no longer propose this. It could therefore also be considered that the authorities have not complied with their duty to co-operate.
In conclusion, we object to the re-distribution of 70 dwellings into the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation, considering instead that the dwellings should be re-allocated to more suitable smaller sites and brownfield land. Whilst we do not object to the principle of a new settlement, we do not consider that it should be relied upon to deliver such a significant proportion of the Borough's housing need within the timeframe envisaged, particularly when suitable alternative sites are available.

These representations are submitted in response to the publication of:
Brentwood Borough Council Local Plan Consultation on Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)
We object to the following change to the Pre-Submission Local Plan:
* Policy R01 (I) (Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation): Increase from "at least 2,770 homes in the plan period".
We support the following changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan:
* Policy R18 (Land off Crescent Drive, Shenfield): Reduction from "around 55" to "around 35 homes".
* Policy R19 (Land at Priests Lane, Shenfield): Reduction from "around 75" to "around 45 homes".
* Policy R25 (Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore): Reduction from "around 40" to around "30 homes".
* Policy R26 (Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore): Reduction from "around 30" to "around 20 homes".
We support the reduction in housing numbers at the allocation sites in Shenfield and Blackmore, as this is justified by the evidence base.
However, we object to the re-distribution of the 70 dwellings to the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) allocation, because it would mean that fewer homes would be delivered in the early years of the plan. The reliance on DHGV to deliver such a large proportion of the Borough's housing need within the early years of the plan is too great, particularly when smaller sites are available, some of which are brownfield.
Larger sites often take longer to deliver housing, because they typically have complex ownership structures and require significant investment in infrastructure. Research published by consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (Start to Finish: How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver? November 2016) found that for sites of over 2,000 dwellings, the average timeframe between the validation date of the planning application and the delivery of the first dwelling was just under seven years. This compares with just under three years for smaller sites of up to 99 dwellings and therefore, whilst it is justified to reduce the housing allocation at the sites in Shenfield and Blackmore, the 70 dwellings should be re-distributed to suitable smaller developments rather than being added to DHGV.
Smaller sites are often able to come forward more quickly than larger sites because they are typically in single ownership and require less investment in infrastructure. They also attract smaller, more local housebuilding companies that would not be present on larger sites, enable more early deliveries and constitute a more sustainable approach towards meeting the housing need.
Brownfield sites should also be prioritised in line with the requirements of the NPPF, which states in paragraph 137 that:
'before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development'.
As a result, brownfield land should be utilised, with greenfield land being released only when all sustainably located, available and deliverable sites have been identified as allocations.
In contrast, Brentwood Borough Council propose relying entirely on the delivery of a single, large, greenfield site to be able to demonstrate and maintain a five-year supply in the early plan period - a method that has been criticised by several inspectors at Local Plan Examinations in Braintree District, Tendring District and Colchester Borough Council in relation to North Essex Garden Communities.
Due to the location of the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation, a significant proportion of Brentwood's housing would be located on the Borough boundary with Basildon. The settlement would adjoin Basildon's Green Belt and although it was once intended for both Councils to locate settlements in this area, Basildon no longer propose this. It could therefore also be considered that the authorities have not complied with their duty to co-operate.
In conclusion, we object to the re-distribution of 70 dwellings into the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation, considering instead that the dwellings should be re-allocated to more suitable smaller sites and brownfield land. Whilst we do not object to the principle of a new settlement, we do not consider that it should be relied upon to deliver such a significant proportion of the Borough's housing need within the timeframe envisaged, particularly when suitable alternative sites are available.

Infrastructure already in place, however this is a green field site and it would be preferable to build on a disused brownfield site nearby. Suggest the old Peugeot garage which has remained abandoned for years.

A different access site should be identified and/or a smaller number of houses. However, given the restricted location of the site, the only other alternative access point is on a road that has safety issues because it is located on a blind bend. If the access problems cannot be addressed, then the site should be excluded.

The reduction in house numbers from 75 to 45 addresses the concern about inappropriate house density. However, it does not answer the objection to new access road which will be poorly sited and potentially dangerous in design. Nor does it address the unsuitability of Bishop Walk, which was limited to 5 houses when built. The access points will still increase traffic risk because of the poor road infrastructure of Priests Lane and the already high traffic levels which will increase as a result of the various new housing developments in the area. It does not reflect the Council motion which implied that a further access point should be found.

I do not think that the Council gave proper consideration to the evidence provided by residents, and failed to look at traffic risk when evaluating the site despite promises to do so. They did not respond to our questions regarding the information provided to them. Moreover the Council was inconsistent in the decision making on sites for inclusion.

I think my existing objections are still valid and want them to be submitted along with the LDP, and continue to request a hearing.The I feel very strongly that the Council did not properly consider the information provided, and has failed to act with integrity with the evaluation of the sites.