Ingatestone is a small village that is totally not geared up to cope with further housing. The infrastructure, such as schools, doctors, station, high street parking are all at capacity. Ingatestone simply cannot cope with more people. Also the history and culture of Ingatestone is that it is a small community village, which would be irreversibly destroyed.

flooding is a major concern with this site

This development, when taken with others in similar areas, will result in a corridor of housing between Shenfleld and Mountessing. It will mean the end of green corridors. Whilst the assurance that new primary provision will be considered, the long term implications for schooling are worrying.

This site is far too close to the A12. Hazardous to health . Fumes will cause breathing difficulties and the traffic noise will cause sleeping problems. Think of the children.

Although this is green belt it has obviously been allowed to be developed and can no longer be described as open. It is an ideal location to help reduce prices in the area and provide much needed affordable housing in the right location.

Ideal brownfield self contained site for housing development.

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.

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.

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.

The following are the comments from Mountnessing Parish Council (MPC) regarding the Local Development Plan consultation. It is accepted that new housing development within the Borough is essential, however, MPC have significant concerns at the scale of activity envisaged both in the town centre and within the close environs of Mountnessing. The LDP document is unclear in how it treats Mountnessing as the numbers of houses quoted (Page 35) is well short of the Council Tax number (359 for the draft LDP vs c500 for Tax purposes). It is also not clear on what the definitions are of the Village, reference has been made of the Village Centre but from a Parish boundary perspective, half of the geographic area lies to the east of the A12 with the other half being to the West of the trunk road, where about two thirds of the houses are. This geographic issue then leads to the perspective that the LDP draft refers to houses being built in Ingatestone at sites 128 and 106 (total proposed 161), although they are firmly within the MPC boundary. To clarify, most traffic accessing these sites from Brentwood or the East bound A12 will pass through the centre of Mountnessing each day. Further omission is made when considering development being completed at the Weston Homes Elms site where the first of 91 completions started as far back as last May (2017) and yet this is not mentioned. The Thoby Priory site is also moving forward (section 106 agreement about to be signed) and will generate a further 87 houses within the short term. Altogether, this means that 178 houses within the Parish boundary are not accounted for against the Village (Page 35). It is unclear why the statistics quoted are only made up to April 2017, ie 9 months out of date. So in summary, although 339 houses are either being built, close to starting or planned for the future within Mountnessing Parish there is no impact according to the statistics on P35 (2016 vs 2033). It is assumed (clarification not having been provided) that the LDP draft does not use administrative/parish boundaries; but using undefined boundaries makes it hard to get a clear picture of the impacts at local levels and could even imply to some residents that there is nothing happening in their locality, if the statistics were to be quoted out of context (eg in the press)! A sensible improvement to the document would be to include tabulations which coincide with Borough and Parish boundaries. In terms of the new development the striking thing is the scale of development proposed on the corridor between Shenfield and the A12 and outwards through Mountnessing Parish (sites 128/106) and towards Ingatestone. The coalescence between Brentwood, Shenfield, Mountnessing and Ingatestone will be very damaging to the rural aspect on leaving Brentwood heading north. The loss of Green Belt is irretrievable. The sheer volume of construction and occupation will also be hard to accommodate from a traffic perspective on roads that are already painfully slow in morning and evening rush hours - especially when they are the only option when the A12 blocks. The advantage of rail travel to London is highlighted but not how the new houses could be served with local bus routes when station car parks are already at full capacity. The current retail centre in Ingatestone is not well suited for its current use because of its cramped roads and lack of parking and promoting it to absorb the impact of the sizeable new developments proposed in Mountnessing is not going to improve matters. It is also noted that much of the town centre building is on car parks and this will create yet more traffic/parking pressure within the centre of Brentwood, Local residents constantly raise concerns (which are valid) of infrastructure pressures (health, education, services etc). A holistic approach should be central to this, with all local bodies being co ordinated to produce the best results for residents old and new. MPC are aware that (in particular) additional education and health facilities are determined by growth forecasts. However, within the scale of proposed development in the Borough the existing executive structures would seem to need to be substantially augmented to maintain proper control over the building works planned and to ensure that the infrastructure issues are managed effectively. The process to get the LDP to this stage and the issues mentioned above do not inspire confidence that the necessary management control from the executive and councillors will be applied. Something commercial builders will exploit fully. In conclusion, MPC consider that the impact on the Village (both its centre and within its boundaries) and in the immediately adjacent areas will be very significant for residents as the A12 corridor develops - yet this hardly gets any consideration in the plan. Overall for the whole Borough, it is a worry that the plan has taken so long to produce, and, looking forward, it is a greater worry how the massive (relative to recent past) scale of the developments proposed will be managed to avoid the local identity being lost and a degradation of amenity and infrastructure, especially in the short term.

Figure 9 - we note that this figure neglects to identify the brownfield opportunities in Green Belt locations. We object to this omission and request that it be amended to note that this has been factored into the development strategy. Redrow Homes is in the process of bringing forward a large brownfield site at Ingatestone Garden Centre. The redevelopment of this derelict site in the Green Belt will assist in meeting identified needs and in restoring the appearance of the area. It is right that the brownfield land allocation within the Green Belt is acknowledged and would be consistent with the requirements of the draft NPPF. Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) - The Interim SA advises that it welcomes comments from stakeholders. Redrow Homes owns one of
the proposed allocation sites (site 128). It intends to bring this site forward for development as soon as planning permission is granted. Site 128 is included in the Interim SA and the appraisal so far raises a few concerns that Redrow Homes wishes to comment on. These relate to the topics used for assessment and how these have been applied to this site. Special Landscape Area - Site 128 is given an amber rating for this in Table C and the notes in Table B say that this is to reflect potential the effects on landscape. It is unclear how this can be assessed at this stage as there is no reference as to what is special about the landscape that could be affected and no account is take of the existing redundant nature of the site. It is further noted that the SLA designation is not proposed to be carried forward into the new development plan. It is also noted at Table A that "Limited data is available to inform the appraisal. Work is ongoing to ensure that all site options are categorised in terms of potential for landscape impacts and also the potential to result in loss of functioning Green Belt (i.e. Green Belt that meets the established purposes). This work will be drawn upon in the future." It is apparent, therefore, that this rating will need to be updated when further information is available and we would ask that it also include an assessment that takes into account the existing nature of the site, the potential for landscape enhancement and the removal of the SLA designation. Distances to facilities (criteria 7-9) - It is noted that Department of Transport walking distance guidelines have been used to rate the distance from these facilities. Consideration should be given to departing from these in light of the health benefits of walking and the NHS guidance that specifically encourages walking to maintain a healthy lifestyle. For these reasons it is considered that the walking distances should be extended. Site allocation 128 - we note that this site is described as being a self-contained urban extension with the neighbouring site (site 106). Redrow Homes owns site 128 and is bringing this forward for development. It has no control over site 106 and would not wish the wording of the allocation to be misconstrued as meaning that both sites must come forward together. The proximity of the site to the settlement boundary means that is clearly an urban extension and therefore it is suggested that the reference to site 106 is unnecessary. As such, it is requested that this be deleted from the allocation summary. SO1 - we support the strategic objective to maximise the sustainable growth opportunities of brownfield sites. Redrow Homes has a large brownfield site at Ingatestone Garden Centre that it is bringing forward for development. The use of such sites ensures that greenfield site release can be minimised and that previously developed land can be re-used to meet existing needs. SO3 - we support the strategic objective to support the sustainable growth of existing larger villages to provide improved housing choice and protect services and facilities. This is a welcome recognition of the benefits arising from developments in such locations. Figure 15 - the RAG coding is not explained in the text of the document and we consider that it should be in order to understand the significance of the assessment.

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!

A group of us visited the council offices last month to view the plan for housing.
The Council seem to be hell bent on turning us all into an urban sprawl of "diddy" houses, if those at Mountnessing interchange are anything to go by. and without consideration for lack of infrastructure - ie lack of parking, small roads, surgeries bursting at the seams, lack of school places, clogged high streets, etc.
Shenfield high street is grid locked most of the time and the general consensus is that there seems to be lack of common sense and forethought where planning is concerned, nothing is people friendly or convenient.
With regard to Ingatestone nursery site surely no one will ant to live between a railway and the A12 and by a rubbish tip! If the latter is removed there will be fly tipping everywhere!! All new residents will have cars which will clog up the roads & high streets, & add to lack of parking - traffic is horrendous as it is, & slip roads and roundabout are becoming extremely dangerous.
Rumour has it that Mountnessing school is to be extended - pick up parking will be an absolute nightmare causing traffic jams in & out of Ingatestone, We really want to reserve our village atmosphere. Common sense must prevail!!

A group of us visited the council offices last month to view the plan for housing.
The Council seem to be hell bent on turning us all into an urban sprawl of "diddy" houses, if those at Mountnessing interchange are anything to go by. and without consideration for lack of infrastructure - ie lack of parking, small roads, surgeries bursting at the seams, lack of school places, clogged high streets, etc.
Shenfield high street is grid locked most of the time and the general consensus is that there seems to be lack of common sense and forethought where planning is concerned, nothing is people friendly or convenient.
With regard to Ingatestone nursery site surely no one will ant to live between a railway and the A12 and by a rubbish tip! If the latter is removed there will be fly tipping everywhere!! All new residents will have cars which will clog up the roads & high streets, & add to lack of parking - traffic is horrendous as it is, & slip roads and roundabout are becoming extremely dangerous.
Rumour has it that Mountnessing school is to be extended - pick up parking will be an absolute nightmare causing traffic jams in & out of Ingatestone, We really want to reserve our village atmosphere. Common sense must prevail!!

See attached.