Heading 1

We object to the proposal to demolish a large family home to be replaced by 9 small flats.

There are currently no blocks of flats in this part of Priests Lane.  The comparison with flats at Kensington Place is inappropriate.  Those flats are much closer to the town and in an area closer to the similar blocks in the centre of town.  They are a long way from the site in question and should not be used as an example of local housing density.  Further, they are set back from the road and so not as prominent as these proposed flats.  In fact they may be more associated with Ingrave Road properties than Priests Lane.  The flats proposed for no 63 would be much more dominant on Priests Lane and distinctly different from other houses in the locality.  

The local area comprises large family houses with reasonably sized gardens.  Most houses in this area are not built across the full width of the plot at a two-story level.  This creates an impression of space and avoids looking crowded.  The proposed building will be over a metre higher than the original building and has an effective three-story frontage across the whole plot.  As a result, it will have an overly dominant effect on the look of the road, which will be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area.

The developer suggests that a number of the existing houses in this area have been ill-designed and extended to create poorly-designed housing.  This is incorrect, the houses along Priests Lane are generally well built and of individual design reflecting the history and character of the area, and are generally regarded as enhancing the appearance of the Brentwood and Shenfield Area.  The proposed block of flats does not fit in or complement the existing nearby housing and will not enhance the area, but rather detract from the existing character.

The developer argues that a higher density housing is in line with housing policy HP03, but we had understood that these policies related to larger developments rather than applying to a single-house property site.  Even if it is relevant, policy HP03 states that the character of the area may make higher densities inappropriate, and we consider that is the case here.

The flats proposed are mainly one or two bedroom flats, however the local plan suggests that there is not a shortage of such flats, but rather that more family homes are needed.  Indeed,
there are currently many recently built and unsold one and two bedroom flats in the town.  The removal of a family home to create unnecessary flats seems poor town planning. 

We are greatly concerned that, if this proposal is approved, a precedent would be set to encourage the removal of family homes to create more flats.  Speculative builders would always be able to out-bid residential buyers when family houses come on the market, meaning that families will lose out to the developers and there will be a net loss to the community in respect of family homes.  This would be a significant detriment to the character of the area and to Brentwood and Shenfield overall.

In addition to the very large frontage, it is proposed to build a substantial two/three storey extension into the back garden together with hard-standing car parking for nine cars.  We had understood that the Council had a presumption against in-fill development particularly of back gardens.  The scale of the building will be totally at odds with other properties and will be easily visible because it runs alongside the new access road.

There will be very little garden remaining and this inevitably results in a net loss of biodiversity.  Such a loss cannot be compensated by the purchase of credits elsewhere.  This problem is compounded by the proposed development of the open field to the rear of the property (application 24/00804/FUL), accessed by the proposed new road next to the property (application 24/00760/FUL).  The combined effect of these developments is a massive loss of green space.

Regarding the design of the flats, there is remarkably little storage space in the flats, and no external storage other than small areas for refuse and limited cycle storage.  We would not regard these small flats as being well designed.  There is no certainty that the builders will use materials in sympathy with the existing housing stock.

There are only nine parking spaces for nine flats, plus 3 guest spaces.  The average car ownership in Brentwood is greater than one car per household, and the distance from the transport links is far enough that most residents will have use at least one car.  It is likely that the nine spaces will be insufficient, and this will cause problems as street parking in this area will be dangerous, and more car parking along Glanthams Road would also create traffic hazards as we already experience.

The pavement along this part of Priests Lane is quite narrow.  It is difficult to see how refuse and recycling bags for nine flats can be accommodated without blocking the pavement, which may result in pedestrians being forced to walk in the road and also refuse containers spilling onto the roadway and creating obstacles to traffic.

As mentioned above. the site of the property is immediately adjacent to the proposed new access road for the proposed housing estate behind Priests Lane.  It is currently proposed that traffic from 97 new homes will use this road.  The property has a driveway immediately next to the junction, within a few metres.  The traffic from nine flats is equivalent to a 10% increase in traffic accessing Priests Lane at the same point.  If we consider that there is a further site to be developed (allocated for housing as part of site R19 in the LDP) which could have another 9-10 houses using the new road access, we could have 20% more traffic joining Priests Lane at this point than has currently been modelled in application 24/00760/FUL and 24/00804/FUL.  Given that there are significant safety concerns over the traffic from 97 homes, this situation will be made considerably worse by this development.  A number of safety concerns have been raised about the increased traffic volumes at this point, which is narrow, has poor visibility and is uncomfortably close to Glanthams Road, another poorly designed junction.   The traffic from these flats will also suffer from visibility problems and there is the potential for traffic conflicts with the traffic using the adjacent road.

In addition, there will be limited space available on site for vehicles associated with the construction.  We have seen other developments on the road where the builders’ vehicles park on the road and cause traffic difficulties.  At this part of the road this would be a significant obstruction and we consider could create hazardous road conditions, particularly during busy times of the day.

In conclusion, we object to the application and we consider that there are several strong grounds for the Council to reject the proposal.