Ingatestone is small community village that is not designed to cope with such a huge amount of people. The infrastructure of roads, schools, doctors, station etc just cannot cope with the development that has already happened. Also the character of the village would be irreversibly destroyed which is just not acceptable.

flooding and A12 access is a concern for this site

Proximity of A12 and haulage site unpleasant for domesticity. And hazardous for health.

Another ideal location

Such a dramatic increase in new residential properties in Ingatestone Village must result in significant additions to the supporting 'infrastructure', including (but not limited to) car parking, sewage & grey water waste, NHS surgery, nursery & schools (all ages up to 18 years) and police presence.

ACTION - BRENTWOOD DISTRICT COUNCIL:
to make public the comprehensive plan to enhance Ingatestone's supporting infrastructure.

Historic Environment Comment -
Constraint: Roman Road runs through site

Education Comment -
ECC advises that the accessibility of all housing sites to schools via safe direct walking and cycling routes must be considered. Particular attention should be paid to allocations 022 and 106.

Green Belt Land - edge of Ingatestone: 079A - 57 units; 106 - 41 units; 128 - 120 units; Total 218. There is an identified need in Ingatestone & Fryerning Parish for affordable and social housing both for sale and for rent and with adequate parking.
A high proportion of the 4,785 residents are over 65 years old (25.5%)and there is a distinct lack of young people as they cannot afford to rent commercially or buy properties near their families and friends. The existing housing stock has 831 detached houses, representing 37.7% of dwellings (England average is 22.3%; 749 semi-detached houses ie 34% of dwellings (England average 30.7%); only 12.4% of are terraced houses as against an England average of 24.5% and as regards flats, there are 275 purpose built ones which is 12.5% of the dwellings (England average is 16.7%) and 64 flats are conversions which equates to 2.9% as against an England average of 5.4% Only 204 properties are social rented which is 9.7% of our households as against an England average of 17.7%, and a further 206 properties are privately rented - again, below the England average. We therefore need housing to be built that meets these identified needs ie small affordable units.
We do not need larger houses that most likely will attract outside buyers.
There should also be restrictions of sale and rent to people not connected to the locality. Local representation should be present at discussions with developers who show an interest in building these units. It is hoped that Housing Associations would be in the mix and properties should be of an interesting design and construction so as to leave a legacy to future generations. Ingatestone & Fryerning has three conservation areas from different periods that add value to the life of the villages.

We write with reference to the above document. We live at (xx address) and we object strongly to the proposed developments in our area. We already suffer from parking problems in Roman Road as a result of your Council's agreement to the over development of the old Heybridge Hotel site. You are now proposing to give permission to erect dense housing developments on three sites no's. 128, 106 and 079A on your draft plan, all of which have access on to the current very busy Roman Road. Your proposed density of these sites will obviously increase the parking problems on Roman Road making sight lines for drivers using or accessing this road increasingly more difficult. Ingatestone village itself already has parking problems as do our local doctors and schools. Also, our railway station car park is already virtually full every day. What facilities are the possible 500 to 700 new residents going to use? I can see no additional doctors surgeries, car parking, schools, bus services, amenity areas or local shops in this draft document. Also, the proposed industrial area, 079C, would be totally out of context with our village. We currently have a mix of small offices and businesses, which operate well within the the village community. Currently, our local industrial area is just outside Shenfield, which it would seem more logical to extend. I think that the residents of Ingatestone would like to keep Ingatestone the village that it is. I have lived in Ingatestone since 1945 and have seen the village change dramatically, not necessarily for the better, and feel that any further development on the scale suggested would be very much to its detriment. I hope you will consider our comments, forcing the developers to dramatically reduce the density of housing and not change the use of our current Green Belt boundaries. We believe that none of these sites are brownfield sites and we are sure that 079A and 079C are Green Belt land.

While instinctively I dislike the idea of the continual in-filling of green spaces, I recognise that the population of the world, the UK, and our area has grown tremendously in the past few years and so something has to be done to alleviate the pressure on housing.
If these areas must be developed, I would like to see serious efforts made to ensure that wildlife isn't adversely harmed too much, and that green areas, ponds, lakes and new trees are part of any changes made. The building work currently occurring at the Mountnessing roundabout by the A12 appears to be taking into account none of these factors - it seems that as many houses as possible are being squeezed into the available space.
My objection, therefore, relates to the amount of people you propose to house on the various sites. Even a relatively small housing development can benefit enormously from having some green space, perhaps some water, and a small copse of trees (perhaps ones that don't grow especially tall but still provide a sense of something not purely urban - like the ones alongside the southbound A12 slip-road at Ingatestone). The addition of paths and tracks would also be very welcome, and would provide people with access to these small pockets of greenery amidst the new housing.
I'd hope you'd look at what cities like New York and Seoul have done in turning disused railways and roads into green areas in which people can walk, run or cycle. Closer to home, the idea of a Green Corridor in Romford, which produced Rise Park and Rafaels Park, is a good example of how developments can have a positive impact on their surroundings. The point that such developments demonstrate is that even very small pockets of greenery, especially trees, can provide huge environmental, health and wellbeing benefit. I recognise that except for the Dunton Garden Village (where there is no excuse for not planning something fit for a better future), the developments on this plan are relatively small, but that doesn't mean that trees, bushes, paths, etc. can't be included. Just a small number of the right kind of plants, trees and bushes can have an enormously beneficial impact for wildlife and therefore the natural environment. As just one such idea, all the proposals that border the A12 should be lined by trees - this would make them more pleasant places to live and could end up increasing the number of trees in those areas.
If these planned developments end up the way the one in Mountnessing seems to be turning out - lots of houses squashed in to a small piece of land next to the busiest of roads -- I think the character of Brentwood and its surrounding villages will be lost. If, however, we take the opportunity to develop housing that balances the need for housing stock with the need to develop mindfully, we could end up with some attractive homes in new housing estates that would be good for wildlife and people.

Although we are not happy with all the extra housing proposed for the above areas, all of which will come off the already busy Roman Road, we appreciate there must be some additional housing in the village.

Our concerns are of course:-

1. how the doctor's surgery will cope with the extra people.
2. too many properties proposed for each development.
3. The access on to the already very busy and often dangerous Roman Road and traffic driving into the village above 30miles an hour.
4. Lack of parking in the village to visit shops and doctors
5. Since, the development on the (old Heybridge Moathouse) land has been built the road is dangerous due to the parked cars on both sides of the road,(as there is not enough parking on this small and over developed area of land) including on many days up to 9 vans of various sizes and the speed of traffic negotiating through them, which will get a lot, lot worse with all this proposed development.

1. Under Infrastructure Planning relating to schools it appears that responsibility is with Essex Council, this seems an abdication of responsibility. They may have final say but personally I think they are too remote from the ground level needs and have no confidence that they will get it right.
2. There is no mention of highways, with such an increase in housing Road connections need proper assessment. This applies to the whole plan. You only need to look at road traffic information during rush hour and school pick up times to see there is a 'peek time' issue.
3. Parking is a major issue. Add more houses at a distance from Ingatestone shops and the already critical situation is made worse when they want to get into the Village. Also parking issues for those needing the surgery, dentist and schools. Added to which there is only a half hourly bus with beginning/end of day restrictions. Those employed in the Village are already parking beside Seymour Field. During the day the Village is often clogged up.
4. My understanding of the Mountnessing end of the Village is that it is not just surface water issues but main drainage servicing the existing properties that is an issue.
5. Housing needs to be affordable. Ingatestone like its neighbours has a aging population, new houses built recently are not affordable for most young people. We need to attract them to the Village.
6. Houses must not be crammed in such that there is no onsite parking. There needs to be off road space for at least two cars, assuming that both occupants are at work locally. If there are children there should be space for an additional car. Parked cars need to be kept off the roads, many roads are narrow and a large proportion of the existing housing stock has insufficient space for cars which is often more suitable for an Austin 7 than a modern car (i.e. small garage or short fore court). Also there would need to be more parking at the station for outlying commuters or an improved public system that obviated the need to use a car to get to the station.
7. Noted that some developments are adjacent to the A12, the issue of noise pollution needs addressing in planning considerations.

1. Under Infrastructure Planning relating to schools it appears that responsibility is with Essex Council, this seems an abdication of responsibility. They may have final say but personally I think they are too remote from the ground level needs and have no confidence that they will get it right.
2. There is no mention of highways, with such an increase in housing Road connections need proper assessment. This applies to the whole plan. You only need to look at road traffic information during rush hour and school pick up times to see there is a 'peek time' issue.
3. Parking is a major issue. Add more houses at a distance from Ingatestone shops and the already critical situation is made worse when they want to get into the Village. Also parking issues for those needing the surgery, dentist and schools. Added to which there is only a half hourly bus with beginning/end of day restrictions. Those employed in the Village are already parking beside Seymour Field. During the day the Village is often clogged up.
4. My understanding of the Mountnessing end of the Village is that it is not just surface water issues but main drainage servicing the existing properties that is an issue.
5. Housing needs to be affordable. Ingatestone like its neighbours has a aging population, new houses built recently are not affordable for most young people. We need to attract them to the Village.
6. Houses must not be crammed in such that there is no onsite parking. There needs to be off road space for at least two cars, assuming that both occupants are at work locally. If there are children there should be space for an additional car. Parked cars need to be kept off the roads, many roads are narrow and a large proportion of the existing housing stock has insufficient space for cars which is often more suitable for an Austin 7 than a modern car (i.e. small garage or short fore court). Also there would need to be more parking at the station for outlying commuters or an improved public system that obviated the need to use a car to get to the station.
7. Noted that some developments are adjacent to the A12, the issue of noise pollution needs addressing in planning considerations.

1. Under Infrastructure Planning relating to schools it appears that responsibility is with Essex Council, this seems an abdication of responsibility. They may have final say but personally I think they are too remote from the ground level needs and have no confidence that they will get it right.
2. There is no mention of highways, with such an increase in housing Road connections need proper assessment. This applies to the whole plan. You only need to look at road traffic information during rush hour and school pick up times to see there is a 'peek time' issue.
3. Parking is a major issue. Add more houses at a distance from Ingatestone shops and the already critical situation is made worse when they want to get into the Village. Also parking issues for those needing the surgery, dentist and schools. Added to which there is only a half hourly bus with beginning/end of day restrictions. Those employed in the Village are already parking beside Seymour Field. During the day the Village is often clogged up.
4. My understanding of the Mountnessing end of the Village is that it is not just surface water issues but main drainage servicing the existing properties that is an issue.
5. Housing needs to be affordable. Ingatestone like its neighbours has a aging population, new houses built recently are not affordable for most young people. We need to attract them to the Village.
6. Houses must not be crammed in such that there is no onsite parking. There needs to be off road space for at least two cars, assuming that both occupants are at work locally. If there are children there should be space for an additional car. Parked cars need to be kept off the roads, many roads are narrow and a large proportion of the existing housing stock has insufficient space for cars which is often more suitable for an Austin 7 than a modern car (i.e. small garage or short fore court). Also there would need to be more parking at the station for outlying commuters or an improved public system that obviated the need to use a car to get to the station.
7. Noted that some developments are adjacent to the A12, the issue of noise pollution needs addressing in planning considerations.

I have looked at the three sites in respect of INGATESTONE. I support the development of the sites abutting the A12 and the former Garden Centre. I have some reservations on the highways site and would object if it removed the recycling facility . It also risks removing the the green belt surrounding INGATESTONE and lead to further development along the A12

I wish to object to the preferred site allocations - site references: 079A /079C; 128; 106 - My objections are: They are green belt sites and therefore these should not be touched. The Government is very clear re protecting the green belt. Traffic is already very high due to the amount of development already in Ingatestone and Mountnessing. Services and infrastructure will be affected. For example the doctors surgery, sewage. Flooding may become an issue as more land is built on. The A12 is struggling to cope now with problems occurring most days not to mention the surface which is fast deteriorating. Due to the problem on this road we are now seeing more and more large lorries coming through the village which causes more problems.

These representations relate to site 106 and note the site as providing a site yield of approximately 41 dwellings on a nett site area of 3.5 hectares. This represents a nett density of some 12 dwellings per hectare which appears particularly low. This will be considered in detail within further sections of these representations. Previous Representations: A number of previous representations for the sites inclusion as a site allocation within the draft local plan and been made the most recent being by Sue Bell BSc MRTPI Chartered Town Planner on behalf of Go Homes in March 2016. This is attached at appendix A. Earlier representations from 2015 are shown at appendix B. The sites suitability to provide a brownfield redevelopment opportunity on land at the former A12 works has been shown to represent sustainable development and as such the LPA have acknowledged this with the draft allocation within their focused review and draft local plan. Planning History: Following the earlier representations, the landowners have submitted for a certificate of lawful use and this has been approved under reference 16/00909/s191. This further supports the brownfield credentials for the site and indicates the use of the site as a haulage contractors parking storage and office. The certificate is attached at appendix C. Constraints to development Flooding: The site is within flood zone 1 which indicates a less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or sea flooding. Both fluvial and groundwater flooding risks are considered to be low. The EA mapping for flooding does not indicate any risk The EA mapping for flooding indicates a very risk for surface flooding that would be resolved through a detailed drainage scheme and SUDS approach. In summary the site has the lowest category for flood risk and the brownfield credentials support its redevelopment for residential. Ecology: The site is heavily trafficked and contains significant areas of stored materials such as road base material and crushed concrete. The boundaries to the site contain hedgerows and planting which are all to be retained as screening and enhanced. Given the above the development is not likely to be constrained by ecological issues. Noise (A12 and Railway): The site is bounded by the railway line which is largely at grade to the eastern side with the A12 slip road and the main carriageway to the North West. Reference to noise data submitted for the adjacent Ingatestone Garden Centre site shows the location will have noise levels which will require a range of mitigation measures to control and provide an acceptable environment for residential dwellings and gardens. The nett area of the site is in excess of 1 hectare less than the gross site. Allowing buffer areas to be provided and in some cased the design development would need to consider acoustic buffer buildings with gardens facing into the body of the site to ensure external amenity levels are below 55 db. This can be further reviewed at the outline planning stage and is not considered to represent a significant constraint to development. Density of Development: The site has a nett area of 3.49 hectares and a yield of 41 dwellings. This appears low when compared with the density levels shown for the other edge of Ingatestone draft allocations and more specifically the density shown for the Ingatestone Garden Centre site. The former yield for the site being the Ingatestone Garden Centre site was approximately 60 dwellings and whilst this is an indication and not a upper level of development it does suggest that the site ref 106 would support a more sustainable density than less than 12 to the hectare. A development of 2, 3 and 4 bed designs incorporating areas of open space and landscaping with 35% of overall numbers to provide affordable housing would be achievable. Access: An access report prepared by Journey Transport shows the suitability of the existing access subject to improvements to be capable of accommodating the development in a safe highway manner. See appendix E for the transport report. Existing Aerial: The latest aerial photograph shows the scale of the existing storage and haulage operation on site and the impact this has on the Green Belt and locality with visual intrusion and large vehicle movements. Summary: The site is considered to be seen as a self-contained urban expansion; The impact on the surroundings is considered to be minimal and the removal of a large haulage and storage stock piles will afford real benefits to the local area and highway network; The site is within a sustainable location; No significant constraints to development exist; and The site is available and developable.

See attached.

Infrastructure is deteriorating due to many matters being ignored but the major item is pressure on services, particularly medical. This pressure is due to busy development allowed in the recent 15 years in Ingatestone and Mountnessing. Parking is a major problem especially for older residents. Allowing development on the scale envisaged in 079A, 106, 128 is likely to have a total negative effect on Ingatestone generally. Give Ingatestone a break!

William Hunter Way Car Park
Any development on WHW should include the same number of parking spaces, examples can be seen in Hyde Park and Chelmsford.
Shenfield Station needs to improve:
car parking by excavation from Hutton Mount at ground level, and maintaining that level as the underground level at the present car park site, providing parking at no environmental cost of inconvenience to adjacent residents.
I previously suggested free access to the back of the station and the taxi rank at the back with a covered walkway to the car park, this would prevent parking on the access road. If this had been negotiated with Crossrail it would have eliminated the need for the dangerous obelisk under the bridge for cyclists to negotiate. It would also enable drop-off and parking for elderly/disabled people.
One more disaster is the development at Mountnessing roundabout where the council has approved the high density development adjacent to the A12 with its CO2 gas density, subsequent health issues.