See attachment

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.

Having been to the local meeting, read through the plan document, I am writing to place on record my objections to the plans related to Ingatestone etc.
Ingatestone is supposed to be a village made up of a community that cares about its environment, plus many residents are commuters to London and are very pleased to return to a place of tranquility and country air after hours spent in London etc. Your outline plans are taking this away from us and will just turn Ingatestone into a 'feeder' town like Brentwood, which has already been ruined by past planning decisions. You plan to build 170 homes in Mountnessing on 2 sites, 60 houses on the site of the Ingateston Garden Centre (ref 128), 42 houses beside the A12 (ref 079A) at the entry to Ingatestone from Mountnessing, as well as an Industrial Estate (ref 079C) in the same area of this entry to the village, which will have a detrimental effect on the impression of the village atmosphere and reduce the appeal of Ingatestone, as somewhere to live that is different from surrounding towns. This is all extra to the infill plans that are about in Ingatesone for more houses and flats - 2 office buildings have applied to be changed into apartments, giving an extra 9 properties, plus an increase in apartment above shops another 4 at least, The Crown to become 4 apartments or more, 16 houses (ref 042) beside the doctor's surgery and 10 houses (ref 098) planned for Ingleton House, where will the old people be placed if this happens and they lose their homes? All these properties will have a minimum of 1 car each and many of the houses will have 2, including the houses planned for Mountnessing - could be an extra 300 cars, at least, at a stroke within the area- where will they all park when they use facilities in Ingatestone - we have no room now
The public bus services is not reliable or convenient for enough people not to need their cars to get to trains or shops, when needed to either Shenfield or into Ingatestone, especially, as people do not like walking too far when we have weather problems and certainly not back from shops carrying heavy bags etc.
 Industrial Estate:
The idea of this type of development is ridiculous as the one that had permission on the site of the old scrapyard in Mountnessing, beside the roundabout on the A12, never happened despite changes made to the plans, as presumably there was no demand to develop. To move it down to the edge of Ingatesone is madness, as all heavy vehicles and vans and other traffic to and from such an estate would need to travel through Mountnessing, past schools and houses with the risk that many of the vehicle movements will also travel through Ingatestone, which could not cope with these types of vehicles and volumes of extra traffic. Plus at most of the residents in this area work away from the village you will just be bringing more traffic into an area already not suitable for these extra volumes, as well as increasing traffic from all the extra houses planned to no real benefit of local people. As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, a number of offices have applied for a change of use to apartments, thus reducing the appeal of Ingatestone for a commercial use!
 Infrastructure
Why you think we need more houses in this area defeats me as the infrastructure is not there to cope with more people. Starting with sewers and other utilities currently overstretched, the doctor's surgery is already struggling to keep up and would find it hard to cope with many more patients, schools will be overloaded with extra children, shops would lose trade as parking becomes impossible. Trade has already started to go from the shops with the closure of Barclays Bank, which used to be a draw for customers of these shops. The other major problem is the current roads are not built to take account of all this extra traffic plus there is no extra space for parking in Ingatestone. The footpaths in Ingatestone are already much too narrow in places for pedestrians to pass each other, especially older residents using disability vehicles/walking frames etc causing others to step into the road, which could be the cause of accidents with more vehicles movements, especially commercial vans and lorries.
 Dunton New Town
This is the place for you to build more of your homes' target etc. as the A127 will probably have an upgraded link to the M25, when the new Dartford Crossing is built, with the feeder road planned to be via this new link. Another 500 houses built there would take pressure of other areas in the borough like Ingatestone and all the new facilities would presumably be in place to help this new development. This way you would keep many of the problems outlined above in one area, which would be much more cost effective and manageable.
 Green Belt
You mentioned in your planning document that the Green Belt is in place for many reasons but 1 in particular is to prevent "Ribbon development" yet your plan for Brentwood through to Ingatestone goes against the advice. Once the Officers Meadows site in Shenfield is built with some 600 houses planned, there will be houses linked from Brentwood Town Centre through to Ingatestone, again making this area look very much like a suburb of London!! Plus what chance that more of these Shenfield residents decide to drive to Ingatestone - more cars in the village more pressure on parking etc. We lose our village community more and more!
I hope my comments are useful for when you come to consider The Local Plan further and you then give more consideration to the problems in Ingatestone, as well as considering the opportunities to develop more in an area with less issues.

See attached

See attached.