See attached

Please see email sent 6.3.16

We feel that the number of sites for development area too many in such a small area. It will change the face of our village forever. Traffic and lack of facilities will impact on the lives of current dwellers.

I would like to object to any proposal to build on green belt land.
Numbered in your draft plan as 022, 023,032, 034,087 235 and 079A.
I object to any proposal to build on green belt land within the borough.

Ingatestone is a pretty place to live and development proposals should be considered carefully. Estate developments could ruin the character of the village and overwhelm it.

The roads in and around Ingatestone would be inadequate to deal with increased traffic. There are already problems with parked cars at both ends of the village but at the Heybridge this gives access to the A12 towards London and the flyover bridge towards Brentwood and Chelmsford. This area is particularly busy and accidents on the A12 cause huge volumes of cars and lorries to come up the slip road. I am surprised that this land was thought viable as I don't see how putting a number of houses and industrial units on the land that is there for a purpose i.e. to keep the A12 traffic away from Ingatestone can help this situation. I am also concerned about light pollution, pollution and noise in particular regarding the employment aspect which I believe would be out of keeping with Ingatestone.

I believe the infrastructure of Ingatestone and surrounding areas has already reached a peak and the utilities in Heybridge are under pressure with the sewage system unable to cope at times and the Roman Road (just before the bridge) often floods with rain water.

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.

These 2 sites will cause major traffic problems around the bridge and slip road, which is the entry to Ingatesone village from Mountnessing.

The situation in Ingatestone has already reached saturation point with heavy traffic and Ingatestone's narrow High Street and pavements becoming more dangerous, especially for old people and children - sometimes it appears to have returned to the old days before the A12 bypass was built.

Ingatestone can certainly not take the extra cars and lorries these sites will produce, especially as the Ingatestone Garden Centre sitein Mountnessing close by is also in your plans - surely this is "Ribbon Development"?? Also every little space between the railway line and the A12 is being filled in with extra bedsits, flats and houses, mostly with no parking or garages - how is this going to help? It is all very well having "no parking" yellow lines down the High Street, as it is now pushing cars into the side roads, all the way to the edge of the village blocking residents houses and making it more dangerous for pedestrians.

The infrastructre in Ingatestone i.e. doctors surgery, schools, utilities like sewers etc. are not coping at the moment and will be totally unable to cope with more growth, as again it is so densely populated between the A12 and the railway line.

I hope that you can consider these points seriously and not make any decision that will cause more problems and ruin this village !!

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.

As one of the local Councillors for Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing, I would like to take the opportunity to comment on two of the proposals for the Ward currently under consultation, without fettering my discretion, in case I am appointed a Member on the Planning and Licensing Committee in the near future.

I refer in each case to the Brentwood Draft Local Plan and give the appropriate page number.

Page 185:
Site Ref 128: Ingatestone Garden Centre (60 homes);

The Garden Centre has been a well used and valued amenity within the ward for over 75 years, providing employment and service facilities. There is a perception within the community that the current owner bought this viable concern and "ran it into the ground," with the overall intention of using the site for housing development.

Whilst I hesitate to echo residents' comments about the current owner's original intentions, I would like to raise my concerns about the appropriateness of this site for potentially 60 new dwellings:

(1) The site is situated between the A12 and the railway line between London and Colchester: A noisy environment by any standards;

(2) There is the issue of Sustainability: The local Primary and Junior Schools are currently over-subscribed, as are the nearest local Doctor's surgeries in Ingatestone and Shenfield. There is also the issue of sewage capability within the area, which I understand from Anglian Water is currently up to capacity.

Both of these issues, in my opinion, should be given material weight when Officers are considering recommendations for either approval or refusal.

Page 186:

Site Ref 079A: Land adjacent to Ingatestone by-pass (part bounded by Roman Road) 42 homes:

Please refer to the same concerns addressed above with regards to noise levels for future tenants and Sustainability, as mentioned regarding the Ingatestone Garden centre proposal.

Site Reference 079A - this area is green belt land and I object to this being changed.
Site Reference 079C - this area is also green belt land and therefore as above I object to this being changed.
Site Reference 128 - I object to this site being used for housing when there was a going concern which was used by the community as a garden centre.
The café was always busy, being used by: local nursing homes taking residents for lunches, afternoon teas, etc.; by clubs, such as the knitting club weekly, to name but a few.
The centre itself was busy - Xmas being a prime example - one weekend there were loads of Xmas trees the following weekend when I went to buy mine they were all gone!
As far as I am aware no one had any idea it was about to close, the local population was still turning up to use it after it was shut and not even the employees themselves appeared to know.
If, as we have been told, it was because the owner had run out of money, then I am wondering why he did not try to sell it as a going concern (ie a garden centre). He has not even tried to sell off his stock in a closing down sale. It feels to me (perhaps cynically!) that it was to force the hand of Brentwood Council in granting the planning application. I shall be sad if this is allowed to happen.
A question re Site reference 128 and 079C
I am even more confused - why does one business closes down (ie the garden centre - Site Reference 128 - which gave employment) and another area (Site Reference 079C) have a proposed change of use in order to give employment? What is stopping the 'Proposed Employment Site - 079C of being put onto Site Reference 128 which is already an employment site rather than changing the use of the green belt land?

See attachment

See attached

I object entirely to both of the above sites for the following reasons:

1- Pollution caused by increased traffic flow through an already congested road system
2- Parking in the village is already a problem and increased population would cause more havoc
3- These two fields area Green Belt land providing a scenic approach to the village. Conversion to an industrial/employment site would be unsightly and detract from the pleasing entry to the village
4- Doctors surgery and schools are already working to capacity.

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.

I object to these developments on the following grounds:

1- There will be an adverse effect on the ambience and quality of village life in Ingatestone

2- The increased traffic levels will exacerbate the existing problems of pot holed roads, lack of parking facilities, and will also result in higher levels of pollution

3- There will be further strain on local services such as schools, the medical centre and Ingatestone station, where the car park is already full on a daily basis, and trains are crowded.

Objection to the use of site 079A for housing on the grounds of noise, pollution, traffic, B1002 slip road, pedestrians, car parking, sight lines, village facilities loss of open green space,

Noise - This site has roads on 3 sides possibly 4 if access to site is from Trueloves Lane. Noise from the A12, 3 lanes at this site, is constant day and night and can be heard in bedrooms on residences fronting Roman Road and gardens both front and back. The cost of insulating houses against some but not all of the noise would result in additional costs to purchasers but would do nothing to reduce sound levels next to the buildings.

Pollution -Traffic fumes from all the 3 roads and especially from the A12 would affect air quality and the enjoyment of outside spaces.

Traffic -The B1002 at this point carries traffic heading directly onto the A12. It is also the relief road for the A12 when incidents and accidents block or cause traffic to divert from the A12. Heavy lorries are leaving and entering the Bushcade site near to the junction of the B1002 with the A12 often in convoy going past site 079A to gain access to the A12 towards Chelmsford. If homes are built on the former garden Centre in Mountnessing this will add extra traffic to this busy road.

Slip road - This site is adjacent to the busy slip road on to the A12. An additional road from this slip road would have to be built to service site 079A.

Pedestrians - Residents from the proposed site would have to cross the busy B1002 to get to the village schools, shops, railway station, etc. and would be at risk from the many vehicles speeding down this road as they head for the A12.

Car parking The houses built on the former Heybridge Hotel site have insufficient parking causing overflow parking in Roman Road. If such parking were to occur on the road outside 079A this would cause narrowing of the road leading to congestion and danger to users especially at the junction by the village sign.

Village facilities - Ingatestone with a population of around 5,000 has only 1 doctors' surgery, does not have the capacity to take more parking, more school places would be needed and the sewers are reported to have reached their limit.

Green space For the size of the village there is currently a lack of amenity space especially at this end of the village none being included in the former Heybridge Hotel site.

Concluding on 079A -This Green Belt space adds to the openness of this area at the south end of the village and should be kept.

Objection to the use of site 079C for industrial use

If building were to be permitted on site 079C there is very little room for a road into this site being close to the slip road off the A12 (which has poor sight lines). Vehicles are also entering and leaving Ingatestone via the B1002 and the B1002 junction by the village sign. This would lead to a dangerous situation with traffic from 5 directions converging in one area.

To conclude

The proposed sites 079A, 079C and the Ingatestone Garden Centre in Mountnessing would lead to the loss of village identity and result in one long development giving rise to additional traffic on an already busy road and increasing the traffic in and through Ingatestone village. Ingatestone village does not have the infrastructure to cope with the additional demands that would placed upon it arising from the building of the proposed new homes.

A fairer solution to the provision of additional homes in the Borough would be to share these out amongst the other villages that are away from the main roads or railway stations and have brownfield sites that could be built upon without using green belt land.

I have just become aware of the closure of Ingatestone garden centre and I wish to register my concern. That centre has been trading for 75 years. It was a much needed public resource, particularly for those, often elderly, residents who do not have access to a car.
Ingatestone has a fairly large population in relation to available local amenities.
I find it highly suspicious that this has happened at almost exactly the same time as a planning proposal is being made for a housing development on that very spot.
Does the planning department share my concerns, given it does seem to suggest possible foreknowledge as to the outcome of the proposal?
Does the council have protocols in place to investigate possible wrongdoing should planning be granted to the housing developers?
Does the council recognise that the community desperately needs accessible amenities as opposed to yet more houses and more people?

We should be grateful if the following points could be taken into consideration by the council when considering the development needs of Brentwood over the next 15 years:
The building of a considerable number of homes appear to have been approved within a tiny area thereby increasing the population of Mountnessing in particular by a huge amount which would be acceptable if all of the following points were taken into account.
It is not clear from the contents of the draft plan that any or sufficient consideration has been taken of the social substructure within the community to accommodate such a large increase in population. Here we are talking about amongst other things:
i) the provision of GPs, and dentists - for instance Mountnessing residents are already relegated to using those doctors in Ingatestone or Shenfield and dentists mainly in Brentwood both of which areas are intended to add to their populations with many further homes;
ii) the provision of primary schools. We are led to believe that Mountnessing school is already fully subscribed;
iii) probably most importantly the roads are not likely to accommodate the extra influx of traffic upon them when they struggle now to do so in particular Roman Road and Chelmsford Road. In Mountnessing for example we have no crossing controlled or otherwise and the speed limit even if observed is unacceptably high for a residential area at 40 mph. There are no speed cameras and the road is simply never policed. To make matters worse over a year ago the school crossing person was removed and not replaced. All of this needs to be in place we suggest if one is to introduce the quantity of homes suggested.
iv) Finally are all of these homes to have parking on site bearing in mind that each new home is likely to have to accommodate at least two cars? This is already an issue with some of the kinds of property in Mountnessing leading to some dangerous parking including on the footway.

I was pleased to be able to attend your presentation at the Ingatestone Community Centre on 22nd February. I have since been able to download the Draft Plan and read some parts of it. Overall it seems very comprehensive, well-reasoned and informative.
As a former local government housing officer for some 30+ years, I very much support the provision of more genuinely affordable housing for the Borough in general and Ingatestone in particular. The sites earmarked within Ingatestone seem to me to be good & appropriate options.
Of course the definition of "affordable" is somewhat contentious & at times Orwellian - i.e affordability = unaffordabilty. The Government seems to regard affordable as being something like 80% of market rents for the rented sector, although their whole housing policy now seems to lean overheavily towards owner-occupation with little regard for those that are unable or do not wish to buy. My view is that there is a definite need for more sub-market rented homes, provided by Housing Associations or dare I say it the local authority itself.
Obviously in an ideal world, every bit of open countryside would be protected (I say this as a keen rambler in the countryside & elsewhere), and places like Ingatestone Garden Centre (IGC) wouldn't be closing. But as IGC has closed down that seems to be an ideal site for genuinely affordable rented housing and/or low-cost owner-occupied dwellings - ideally affordable in perpetuity and perhaps with a reasonable priority for local people. I think somewhere like Ingatestone needs an increase in that type of provision. What it doesn't need is more footballers' mansions, or developments like that at Trueloves Lane (where, hilariously, the new homes were marketed as affordable with a price tag of some £1.5 million!). Without more affordable housing, where do people expect the next generation to live? Kids living with parents until they're about 50? Or moving to Scunthorpe (for example) just to find somewhere to live.
Reading a recent article in "Inside Housing" it was reported that just over 10% of England was currently used for housing. Nationally, to build some 2.5 million homes over the coming years would only take things up to around 12%. So I think we are some way short yet of concreting over the entire countryside, as some fear.
As you state in your report, any new development needs to be appropriate in scale and design for its location, have suitable infrastructure, protect Green Belt as much as possible, have suitable landscape buffers / definable boundaries etc (e.g. between Ingatestone & Mountnessing) and, where affordable housing is included with a scheme, to be well integrated (i.e. avoiding what has been referred to in the media as "poor doors"!).
On the question of affordable housing (Policy 7.5), I am aware that developers will at times seek to avoid any affordable quotas, instead making a payment for the Council / HA to develop elsewhere. I think this leads to less mixed communities and should be resisted as far as possible.
From some of the conversations I overheard at the meeting of 22nd February, I suspect a fair few local residents won't share most of my views, and will probably be in the "nimby" camp, of not building anything anywhere ever. I wonder how many of those objecting are living in developments which were themselves once open land and no doubt subject to similar objections a generation or two ago?
One thing I'd query - in Sections 7.20 /7.21 you refer to 17.1% of local households having someone with a disability / long-term illness, yet only 5% provision for such groups is proposed for new developments.
I remember at one time there was discussion of "lifetime homes" - developing new homes that could be easily adaptable for people in all stages of their life. But these are probably not popular with developers.
To finish on a parochial note, I'm wondering what the plans are for 24 Norton Road, Ingatestone - the former Children & Families Consultation Service offices - which have been empty and boarded up for some months now. I assume this site will be earmarked for housing?
Many thanks.
John Bright CIHCM

Site Ref 079A and 128

We wish to make our views known about the proposed development for the land between Ingatestone and Mountnessing. Having attended one of the planning display evenings at Ingatestone Community Centre we were concerned to see that the Ingatestone Garden Centre is only one of three sites. It seems that the Roman Road area is a targeted area of ribbon development and the quantity of housing and proposed commercial change of land use on the field site where Roman Road meets Roman Road seems rather high in such a small area.

The housing that was placed on the Heybridge Hotel several years ago was of such a high density that the houses were squashed into very small spaces resulting in an overspill of cars onto Roman Road. The planners had not considered the number of cars per home.

Our locality has yet again been identified in the plan for 42 houses on a green field site that will literally be next to the A12. The Ingatestone Nursery Site of 60 dwellings will be sited on a very busy slip road of the A12. We live directly abutting the site and are fully aware of the constant flood issues under the nearby railway bridge. What will become of the additional water created that will also be exacerbated by the increase in concreate? The garden centre was not a brown field site but green belt and a thriving business.

We noticed on our visit to the display of plans that there is a further proposed site for commercial development on Roman Road. Is this an appropriate site for such development? Green fields create space, homes for wildlife and are aesthetically essential to the well being of current residents. It appears that all of the sites have been placed in a very small area causing a complete change in appearance to our village. With the proposed development in Shenfield one long urban conurbation will link the villages of Ingatestone, Mountnessing and Shenfield.

Having read the Development Plan we noticed that it states that there are good transport links in our locality. The bus service is scant and the train is hourly. There are two village schools and one small GP practice. How will the current infrastructure cope with the burden of approximately 400 new residents?

We appreciated that housing needs to be built as indeed our own children were forced to move away but we would ask for consideration to the number of sites in such a small area.

See attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.