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.

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.

Freeths LLP act on behalf of both Simons Developments Limited (SDL) and R P Gaymer (the freehold owner of Site Reference 079C which comprises of 2.06 hectares of land adjacent to Ingatestone by pass part bounded by Roman Road). SDL have been selected as the preferred developer should the site be allocated in the emerging Development Plan (DP).

The proposed removal of the site from the Green Belt is supported, particularly given that the site is well related to the existing built up area of Ingatestone and does not fulfil any of the five purposes for including land in the Green Belt that are set out at Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

However, SDL and R P Gaymer object to the allocation as currently proposed in the draft DP for the reasons set out below.

The proposed allocation solely for employment uses (within Class B of the Use Classes Order) and the restrictive nature of criterion a - d which form part of Policy 8.4 is a sub optimal land use strategy and a wider allocation for a mix of uses would be more sustainable over the draft DP period to 2030.

More specifically, Ingatestone is identified as a Settlement Category 2 Village Service Centre and Paragraph 5.28 of the draft DP notes that it is "a district shopping centre with a good range of jobs, community and health facilities. As the largest village facilities here serve a significant catchment beyond the immediate area. Public transport accessibility is relatively good. The village has a rail station and a secondary school".

By way of additional background it is also noted that the Brentwood Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (BR&CLS) 2014 concludes, in its Audit of Centres at Appendix 5, that one of the weaknesses of Ingatestone is that it's food stores are quite small and do not attract a significant proportion of main and bulk shopping trips.

The above position is further supported by the results of the NEMS Household survey undertaken as part of the BR&CLS which identifies that the existing food stores in Ingatestone attract only a small percentage of available convenience goods (food) expenditure from the local area. To be specific the Co- Op attracts 8.2% and Budgens 9.9% (Table 4 of Appendix 2 of the BR&CLS).

Put simply the above market share of available convenience goods expenditure from the local area is very low and not characteristic of a district centre which serves a significant catchment beyond the immediate area. The result is an unsustainable pattern of main and bulk food shopping with predominately car based trips to large format out of centre food stores further afield.

Whilst the BR&CLS identifies a requirement for only 364 sq m of retail floorspace falling with Use Classes A1 to A5 over the DP period that is again, based on the existing market share for Ingatestone which is, as above, not a sustainable pattern of shopping consistent with the role and function of a district centre.

The above position is unlikely to change unless the emerging DP is amended to include a specific allocation of land on which retail uses within Classes A1 to A5 of the Use Classes Order (retail, financial and professional services, cafe/restaurant, drinking establishment and hot food takeaway uses) can be accommodated. In that context Site Reference 079C is well located proximate to the existing district centre such to ensure linked trips with existing shops therefore benefiting from the resulting increase in market share that such additional provision on Site Reference 079C would secure,

Accordingly, whilst Site Reference 079C should continue to be allocated for employment uses within Use Class B, Policy 8.4 - in so far as it relates to the site - should be amended to refer to a wider mix of appropriate land uses to include uses within Classes A1 to A5 subject of course to other policies in the emerging DP. In any event uses with Use Classes A1 - A5 (particularly a new food store) would generate a significant number of new jobs thereby ensuring that employment opportunities are provided also further contributing to the long term sustainability of Ingatestone.

In addition, and again in the interests of contributing towards the long term sustainability of Ingatestone, any mixed use allocation in respect of Site Reference 079C should also be drafted to include residential institutions such as a care home within Use Class C2 of the Use Classes Order. Again such uses make a significant contribution towards the provision of employment opportunities.

The changes proposed above are consistent with Strategic Objectives (SO) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 13 of the draft DP and also with Policy 5.1 in respect of the wider spatial strategy which identifies that Ingatestone is a sustainable location for growth (including new homes as per Policy 5.2 and 7.4 (in so far as it relates to Site Reference 079A), Policy 5.3 in respect of job growth and employment land which specifically acknowledges that retail and leisure uses contribute towards employment targets over the DP period, Policy 7.7 in respect of the provision of specialist housing such as within Class C2; and Policy 8.7 in respect of the role of local centres and the hierarchy of centres at Appendix 2.

A linked objection has however been made in respect of Policy 5.4 Retail and Commercial Leisure Growth and Policy 8.8 New Retail Development both of which fail to make adequate provision for Ingatestone as identified above.

These representations are submitted in order to form the basis of a constructive dialogue with the local planning authority with the objective of ensuring a more sustainable land allocations strategy to meet all of Ingatestones needs over the DP period to 2030.

1- I object to the number of houses proposed for the Garden Centre site as these will inevitably be for families but the current schools in the area are at capacity, and so is the doctors surgery. Also the parking situation is unsuitable in the villages.

2- I also object to this area being used by council works traffic etc as this will have a disastrous effect on our village of Ingatestone. The current level of traffic through the village is high and with any new houses will only get worse with nowhere to park.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.