New Developments in Ingatestone

Site 079C - Good idea if restricted to light, non-polluting (air and noise) industry.

Site 079A - Only if officers and councillors will live on A12 side of site for a minimum of 5 years and then reconsider! No one should be encouraged in any way to live on what is virtually the A12 embankment where conditions will only get worse.

Site 042 - Good idea if mixed development.

Site 128 Far too many dwellings.

In considering additional dwellings account must be taken of existing resources and how this would be managed/enlarged to cope with increase in population e.g. all three schools, medical services and parking amongst others. These services provide for an area that extends well beyond the village itself.

Please keep me advised of planning decisions/consultations.

Policy 9.8 is contravened by the building of Site 079c, 079a, 128,034, 087 and 235 and the already approved Mountenessing roundabout development. These would produce coalescence/continuous build-up from the north end of Ingatestone village along an A12/B1002 corridor with very few open spaces.
Policy 10.7 (Infrastructure and Community facilities) is not addressed for the potential building of 128 new dwellings (Sites 042,098,179a,128) plus already approved houses at Mountnessing Toby Priory and Mountenssing roundabout. If all were permitted there would be the necessity for significant expansion of GP centres, Primary and Secondary School classrooms and sports ground within the near-locality of Ingatestone/Mountnessing. If any of these sites is developed, appropriate additional Medical Facilities and School classrooms/sports grounds should be in place before or at the same time and not after any new dwellings become occupied.
Policy 10.8 (Communal Open Space) is not addressed for Sites 079a and 128. Communal Open Space e.g. public cafeteria, play area etc, should be required for these developments if they are permitted. (No significant Communal Open Space was created within the recent Heybridge Hotel, Ingatestone development; this oversight should not be repeated). Since 079a, 079c and 128 have the potential for creating dangerous road conditions at road junctions and A12 slip roads. Lorries exiting Site 079c would create unacceptable danger at this road junction which has a "blind" approach from both directions west and east.
Policy 6.3 and 10.11 are contravened by proposals for sites 079a, 079c and 128. Sites 079a and 079c are located immediately next to A12 which will become even busier with the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing. Site 128 is within 30 metres of the A12. While Air pollution is considered in the Draft Plan (but not evaluated for these sites), noise pollution is not mentioned, but is a significant factor for these three sites, and should be properly taken into account.
Policy 10.2 (Parking) is not addressed. Sites 079a, 128 and Mountnessing Toby Priory and Mountnessing roundabout developments have the potential for creating c.300 extra cars (estimated 1 1/2 cars per dwellings) using Ingatestone village centre/station car park. A proper assessment and solutions should be made for car parking in the village centre and station; the number of new dwellings permitted should be reduced to prevent congestion in the village centre. If any of these sites and/or site 042 is allowed, at least average 1 1/2 on-site car parking spaces per dwelling should be specified to avoid on-street parking. (There is now significant on-street parking on the A12 access road along Roman Road from the recent Heybridge hotel, Ingatestone development, either because insufficient on-site spaces were provided or residents are not using the provided on-site parking spaces due to a high density of the dwellings).
Policy 10.13 Site 042 is prone to flooding; a proposed "solution" for a "tank" is unacceptable as it does not account for an alternative when the tank is full.
Policy 7.3 Proposals for Site 042 are for higher than appropriate residential density on a site with restricted access. The wood copse at the eastern end of Bell Mead should be retained as "Open Space" to conform to Policy 10.8 and to separate any new development from Fairfield flats.
Policy 9.8 Site 128 contravenes the village coalescence policy.
Policy 6.3 and 6.4 Crossrail Park and Walk from Site 034, 087,234: Significant danger to pedestrians would be created by the proposal because of the twists, "blind corners", narrow railway bridges and lack of pavement along Alexander Lane (Policy 6.4). Altering the configuration of Alexander Lane would contravene its rural nature, Policy 6.3. A more suitable site for a car park or a less dangerous pedestrian access route should be found, e.g. a pedestrian tunnel under the railway on to Long Ridings Avenue.
Before the number and density of new houses on Officers Meadow are agreed, assessment should be made of the impact how many new classrooms and additional sports field will be required to accommodate the additional children attending Shenfield School. These new classrooms and additional sports field should be completed before or at the same time as the houses become occupied.

See attachment

If development is planned on green belt land I will object very strongly.The government is responsible for green belt to be protected & should be sacrosanct.I would also object on the grounds that the current infrastructure of the village could not cope with an extra 118 homes & the families.

I am happy that Bell Mead however should go ahead.

See attachments

See attached