Priests Lane is already extremely busy and was not built for the amount of traffic that use it at the moment let alone another 75 houses. There are not sufficient pavements along the road and the road is too narrow in places for 2 cars.

Increase in proposed housing is arbitrary. No assessment of whether Priests Lane can withstand likely increased traffic. The single access point is not viable and transgresses legal safety regulations. The safety of residents has been ignored. Technical submissions by residents highlighting that proposed access points are hazardous have been ignored. No account has been taken of existing pollution problems that will be worsened. Priests Lane does not currently comply with the Essex design guide relating to road and pavement widths. Hence the proposals are flawed and illegal.

The size of the development is too large for the road infrastructure in the vicinity. I do not object to the need for more housing in the area, and I don't have an issue with the location, but the priests lane area is already gridlocked in peak times and this will only make it far worse.

Concerns regarding increasing number of houses and resulting traffic along a lane that isn’t built to handle the amount of traffic along it. There are not sufficient pavements and it is a challenge walking along the road today.

The number is arbirtrary. No consideration has been taken about the impact this would have on the traffic that is already on a lane and not a main road. This is leading not only to traffic congestion and increased pollution down the road but also to safety of pedestrians including school children during the rush hours. If there were to be an emergency - it is would be impossible to negotiate these roads at that time. I do think that we need to support development but not at any cost. Priests lane is now literally under siege and we cannot even leave our premises to go about our work or get to work during these times. I have been told that the road and pavement width do not comply with the Essex design guide.

The local infrastructure cannot support an additional 45 homes let alone more than 45. Priests Lane is already extremely busy and there is traffic jams and cars parked on pavements and verges which is dangerous to pedestrians especially children, the elderly and parents with prams as well as other road users. The road is used a lot by schoolchildren. Delivery drivers park where they want when they want which is not safe. No safety/road assessment has been carried out to verify that an additional 45 homes is would be safe for road users. Pollution in the area will increase massively.

Priests Lane is a narrow residential street with an already dire traffic situation (used as a rat run especially by delivery drivers and tradesmen, with congestion morning and afternoons) and unsafe pedestrian provision (narrow pavement on only one side of the road south of Friars Avenue), so it can barely support traffic from 45 new homes let alone 75.

Concern for 75 new homes and the infrastructure and impact to locals.
I don't forsee the local roads are wide enough to increase traffic.
Bike lanes would be good if there was enough room.

Traffic - no assessment has been undertaken to see if the Lane can withstand the increased traffic from the proposed development.
The Lane is already extremely busy especially at peak times due to work and school traffic. There is also a major issue with many cars going at a dangerous speed of over 30mph.
This needs to be addressed with a proper plan in place for the development to successfully go ahead.

If there is any compromise for the proposed development, I believe the initial provision for 45 new homes would be the better compromise. Priests Lane is currently heavily congested with traffic during peak times - a further 45 home would no doubt add a further 90 vehicles, if each home has an average of 2 vehicles - at least half of those vehicles will need to access Priests Lane during peak times creating further impact on local traffic. If 75 homes are considered the impact would be further still.

I object as with even 45 houses the impact on priests will be to make it a total deadlock.
At present at prime times of day 7/9 AM 4/6 PM it can take 30 minutes to get from St. Andrews to the traffic lights
Engines pumping pollutants to dangerous levels
The lane is very narrow in places not complying to Essex design guide with respect to road and pavement width.

Objection to the increase in the number of proposed houses and decrease in access points on the Priests Lane site for the following reasons:

• The site was initially intended to have 2 access points and it appears that although the number of houses has been increased the actual number of access points has been decreased to 1. This surely poses an even more substantial safety risk to those using Priests Lane. The proposed site access seems unsafe for a housing development of this size as it exits onto a lane that is already too winding, narrow and dangerous. There have already been several accidents in the vicinity of the site access. In addition, I understand that evidence has been provided that the road access does not meet current road design guidelines and has insufficient visibility splays. This needs to be revisited, especially as it is intended for there to be only 1 access point. The proposed access road and junction are poorly sited, with poor visibility, and, I understand, may not meet the recommended dimensions for safe road junction design. The lack of visibility at no. 61A will not be altered, and therefore I do not consider this junction viable as a safe exit from the site. In addition, Priests Lane is narrow at this point with private driveways immediately opposite and in close proximity to Glanthams Road, which would create an undesirable left-right staggered junction.
• Traffic often queues back from the junction of Priests Lane and Middleton Hall Lane to beyond the proposed site access point. The increase in housing numbers would make this problem worse making travel at peak times intolerable and causing even more pollution.
• The LDP fails to take account of the increased usage of Priests Lane due to the significant proposed building in Shenfield. Most traffic from this development needing to access Brentwood and the A127 will utilise Priests Lane, putting further strain on the Lane itself and also the Junction with Middleton Hall Lane, a junction which, when using accurate data analysis would be shown to already be at full capacity.
• This is the only greenfield land identified for development within the LDP. Recently the Prime Minister has confirmed a major re-think on building, promising development would not be on green fields but would be constructed on brownfield sites. The plan contradicts this not only approving this land for development but, while it suggests that brownfield sites be developed before greenfield sites, the Council have no way to control this in practice. Indeed, the housing trajectory as outlined within the plan indicates that by the removal of its protection, the Priests Lane site is, in fact, targeted to be one of the first to be built upon despite brownfield sites being available. This means it is irretrievably lost, when in future it may be required to combat the expected increased pollution as a result of all the building within the area.
• Despite the overall increase in traffic there are no satisfactory mitigation proposals for Priests Lane as a whole and the addition of an extra road via which 75 households are to access the Lane poses significant health and safety issues for road users and residents alike. Due to the narrowness of the road, it can be difficult and dangerous to exit driveways in busy periods as turning out of driveways requires the road to be clear in both directions. This is particularly difficult for residents on the even-numbered side where visibility is poor and there are no pavements. The road is ill-designed to cope with large volumes of traffic as it is residential, winding and narrow, an increase in housing numbers is a cause for safety concern for pedestrians and drivers alike.
In summary, the increase in housing numbers will cause significant traffic issues for a road already at capacity at peak times and the proposed access point is likely to pose a significant safety risk to all who use the Lane.

The existing infrastructure can already not cope with the volume of traffic.
Already roads and footpaths dangerous
This proposed development has no choice of access routes and will worsen the already over congestion.

1) There will be a substantial increase in traffic.
2) The site has single access.
3) The plan fails to address safety of residents. Highly likely that RTA’s will increase.
4) Increased pollution.
5) The Lane was not meant to be used as a distributary road.

The proposed modification to sections 1(e) and the new paragraph that follows paragraph 9.175 of Policy R19 directly respond to representations made by Sport England on the pre-submission version of the plan and the modifications were subsequently agreed as part of the completed Statement of Common Ground with the Council. The modified policy is therefore supported as it would be considered to accord with Government policy in paragraph 99 of the NPPF (2021).
Before the plan is finalised for adoption, a minor drafting error has been identified. In the new paragraph that follows paragraph 9.175, the word ‘projects’ has been omitted from the end of the paragraph. This addition is required to make it consistent with section 1(e) and to allow the final paragraph to make sense. It is requested that this be amended to avoid any potential confusion when the policy is implemented.

The number of proposed houses has been increased from 45. This will impact on the traffic using priests lane even more which is already heavy and also used as a rat run to avoid Brentwood. There are already long queues at the junction at shenfield common which will be exacerbated by cars coming from the site, sometimes 2 cars per household. The queues create much air pollution for pedestrians. Vehicles speed along priests lane which was never intended to carry the amount of traffic it already does, so more vehicles will only increase the danger for pedestrians

The Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association (PLNRA) represents residents who live in an area likely to be affected by the development of the Land at Priests Lane (Policy R19). We maintain that the technical and reasoned arguments put forward by local residents and the PLNRA have not been properly addressed and continue our objection against the development on this site as follows:

• The site is currently regarded as protected open urban space, which, once developed will be lost forever. The newest Government thinking is that building should primarily take place on brownfield sites so that greenfield sites such as that at Priests Lane are not lost. The development of this site, particularly, as it is scheduled to be built upon before brownfield sites in the area, goes against this current thinking.
• The PLNRA has consistently requested official traffic reviews of the Lane and have been told these will only be required when a planning application is submitted. However, with no such review it is impossible to determine how many homes the site can safely accommodate without a detrimental impact on those who use the lane. There is therefore no technical basis to support the increased housing number proposed and calls into question the safety of the proposal that there is to be only one access point.
• The high-level traffic analysis which has been carried out as part of the LDP is insufficient, based on flawed datasets and does not take account of the cumulative effect all the building within Shenfield will have on the traffic using Priests Lane for access to Brentwood and the A127.
• Essex Highways has not performed a detailed technical review, and there is insufficient evidence demonstrating the access from Priests Lane to the site meets safe road design guidelines as recommended by Department for Transport. This is particularly significant as the intention is now to have only one access to the site at a point where the road narrows and close to the entrance there is pavement only on one side, while increasing the number of proposed houses.
• 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.
• The traffic junction analysis data is seriously flawed and it appears that the data has been cherry-picked to ensure that the junction tests are met.
• No account has been made of the increased pollution along Middleton Hall Lane and Priests Lane, the junction of which is a pollution hotspot.

There are going to be problems with traffic and infrastructure generally Too many houses for all facilities.

Insufficient consideration of additional traffic, localised air pollution in Priests Lane (a route walked by children on their way to a number of schools), environmental impacts, resident safety. Arbitrary number (75) of new houses now proposed by developer; no indication of why 75 is appropriate.

1. Too much traffic and congestion in Priests Lane already
2. Safety issue with narrow pavement and road
3. This is a Lane not built for heavy traffic flow, and already dangerous
4. It is a pollution hotspot already so cannot afford extra traffic
5. Children and cyclists will not be safe with the extra traffic
6. Infrastructure not sufficient to cater for extra houses and traffic
7. Proposed access is in a dangerous position in the Lane

2. Justified
4. Consistent with National Policy

The proposed modification to criterion 2. of Policy R19 is consistent with the requirements of the NPPF.

2. Justified

The inclusion of the additional wording to paragraph 9.175 in relation to the Endeavour School ensures that the full range of education provision is identified and considered.

This modification addresses ECC’s Reg.19 Rep 22476 and the position in the Statement of Common Ground (F17D) between BBC and ECC.

3. Not Effective

Clarity is required for both applicants and decision makers in relation to the policy requirement criterion 3.b. for ‘quietway’ cycle routes connecting transfer hubs.

As currently drafted the policy provides limited detail and the supporting text provides no guidance on what a ‘quietway’ cycle route is and their locations, or what a transfer hub is and their locations.

BBC should include appropriate wording within the supporting text to address this.

Priests Lane is currently a very busy road that continues to attract more and more traffic on a weekly basis.
The road is used as a through road/ short cut for school trips to both Brentwood school & County High and also by commuting traffic causing enhanced traffic jams from Middleton Hall Lane back as far St, Andrews.
The lane is also used as a cut through / escape route when there is an incident on the A12 or Shenfield Road as the overflow traffic tries to find a quicker route through Priests Lane.
Bin collection days (Thursday & Friday) make the traffic congestion even worse.
An increase in vehicle would only result in further congestion given that the new properties would be mainly families and probably more cars speeding in the rare quieter times.

In general the road is not suitable for heavy traffic or wide enough in some areas for traffic to pass easily.
the road surface that was renewed within the past 5 years is already in need of repair and collapsing in some areas with the current traffic.
Increase traffic would only make this worse.

There is also the consideration to emergency services and how they would access all areas in and around Priests Lane. Something of a issue at present.

Since the relocation of the police station to the Town Hall. The police use priests lane as a cut through at high speed to Shenfield.
With high volumes of traffic this would make it impossible as it would for Fire & Ambulance services.

To myself and most of the residence in Priests Lane, there has been no thought process been put in to this application other than revenue to be made out of unused land.

Perhaps we should be considering in a period of Green thinking, that the Council provide a modern Park & Recreation ground for the families of the existing residence.

2. Not Justified
3. Not Effective
4. Not Consistent with National Policy

ECC as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for BBC consider that the inclusion of site specific text within the supporting text of the site specific policies, in particular, including the references to the specific Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs) that affect the development, will provide clarity to applicants and decisions makers of the need for consideration of specific CDAs at the beginning of the planning process.

Paragraph 9.176 should be replaced to ensure factual representation of the current position in respect of flooding, in line with paragraphs 159 and 160 of the NPPF.

This reflects ECC’s Reg.19 Reps 22477, the position in the Statement of Common Ground (F17D) between BBC and ECC, and the position in ECC’s Hearing Statement G7AN – paragraph 1.13.

I object to the increase in the number of houses now proposed. Priests Lane is an area of large detached houses in spacious plots. Potential doubling of the number of houses previously approved for planning is out of character with the area and will change the demographic of this area.
I also believe that the increased size of the development is a strain on the narrow Priests Lane that will be the only thoroughfare out of the development. This Lane is choked with traffic in the mornings and is a pollution hotspot for residents and pedestrians alike.

The number is arbitrary, as no assessment has been undertaken to confirm the Lane can withstand such an increase in traffic and it 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 site has a single access point for which not only has no specific or robust argument been made that it is viable, but which must also be considered a safety issue should this point be blocked to emergency vehicles.
• The Plan fails to address the safety of residents. 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.
• 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.

Removal of Urban Open Space (R19) under Main Modifications will deprive forever space for two adjoining oversubscribed schools to expand to alleviate pressures on school spaces with increasing urbanisation.

R19 should be earmarked for expansion of both schools and for playing field space to accommodate the exponential rise in pupil numbers and replace the playing fields lost to Hogarth school’s buildings/carpark. Loss of schools’ playing fields have a negative impact on the mental/physical health of children. Instead, develop the off-site playing field for housing.

Previous assessment confirmed Priests Lane couldn’t withstand traffic increase without compromising health and safety even more.

Removal of Urban Open Space (R19) under Main Modifications will deprive forever space for two adjoining oversubscribed schools to expand to alleviate pressures on school spaces with increasing urbanisation. Previous assessment confirmed Priests Lane couldn’t withstand traffic increase without compromising health and safety even more.

2.Not Justified

3.Not Effective

4.Not Consistent with National Policy

ECC as highway and transportation authority welcomes inclusion of text within criterion 1.c. identifying the Brentwood Cycle Action Plan.

In order to futureproof the policy and ensure that development provides the appropriate walking and cycling provision in the future, in line with NPPF paragraphs 92.c, 104 c and 106 d, the supporting text should provide clarity on the types of other ‘relevant evidence’ which is referenced in the Policy. It should be made clear that such evidence should include details on future key destinations and attractors for walking and cycling connections.