The Villages could not cope with an increase in population without a massive improvement in infrastructure. In our own village of Kelvedon Hatch, the roads are already very congested and parking is a real issue. This is especially evident in School road where access and parking for the School is very congested and dangerous.

The Sewer system is overloaded, and has had many problems, including flooding homes with raw sewage on more than one occasion, and couldn't cope with extra waste. A new sewer would have to be installed.

The electricity supply (overhead to some houses) is not good, water pressure is low and both would need to be upgraded if any new homes are proposed.

The area would also require better access to Doctors (already over 2 weeks to get an appointment), better Public Transport, and more school places.

We do not have easy access to a major hospital, from Kelvedon Hatch our choice of hospitals are Queens and Broomfield, both are very difficult to get to by public transport, and neither have anywhere near enough parking spaces to cope with current population.

The issues outlined here are very high level and need to be reviewed in much more detail, on the back of the presentation of robust evidence, to enable meaningful comment. There is no mention of energy infrastructure.

Existing roads are not looked after enough leading to degrading of road surface, to build even more roads would impact further on existing roads. Rail network is laughably poor with constant delays.

Essex Bridleways Association exists to try to create and enhance safe off-road paths for horseriders to use because of the increasing level of traffic and the danger that this brings to vulnerable road users, including horse riders but also cyclists, pedestrians and the disabled. Approximately 3,000 reported road accidents a year involve horses, often with fatal consequences.
Our input on this consultation, by the nature of it, is limited to Green Infrastructure provision as much of the consultation is related to strategic housing locations and employment areas, and where any growth should be located. However, there are advantages to our input at this early stage as by taking account of the likely infrastructure needs before planning becomes too detailed is far more useful and cost effective than if it is left to outline planning stage. Therefore, we appreciate that some of our comments may not be relevant for this current consultation but it is reasonable to assume that these comments can be taken into account also at a later stage in the drafting of the final Local Plan.
Brentwood District is reasonably well-served by bridleways but they are in isolated areas; there is no real connectivity between these pockets and this is something that should be addressed within any Green Infrastructure Plan. I note that there is a Green Infrastructure Study in progress at the moment and would welcome a copy of this when it is available. If this is still in the fact finding stage, then we would be very pleased to have an input into this with regard to the enhancement of the public rights of way network. We note point 6.9 of the consultation document states '...The links between and access to this network need to be maximised to improve their wider use. Existing green infrastructure should be protected and enhanced and where opportunities arise, in conjunction with new development, additional provision made'. We very much support this statement, and are also pleased to note that in point 6.11 that you intend to enhance and protect existing network of open spaces, and that you will seek to secure additional provision where deficiencies are identified. Essex Bridleways Association would be prepared to meet with Planning Officers to help identify this deficiency within the District if this would be of help in planning future infrastructure needs.
We note that in point 6.2 that previous consultation responses have indicated the need to have infrastructure in place before development is completed. We fully support this statement and request that Essex Bridleways Association is able to contribute to the planned infrastructure in the initial stages rather than being presented with a 'fait accompli'.
We note that in point 6.7 you state that 'Development proposals will need to consider transport infrastructure...and impact on Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and propose mitigation as necessary'. It is reasonable to assume that this covers all rights of way rather than those just for pedestrians and cyclists. Point 6.6 only mentions pedestrian, cycle and vehicular transport and we request that safe equestrian access is included within the overall transport strategy.
It is noted that overall Brentwood places a significant importance on the provision of open spaces, and this is welcomed; however it is important to ensure that access is made available to all users, not just pedestrians and cyclists. As far as Rights of Way law is concerned, bridleways can be legally used by walkers, cyclists, riders and people with mobility problems i.e. the sections of society who are recognised as vulnerable road users. From an economic point of view, it would obviously make sense to provide the public with one multi user path rather than seeking to construct a separate provision. Improvements to the infrastructure such as this can be funded by S106 contributions from any new development.
Mr Richard Benyon MP, former Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries showed his support for multi user tracks in a letter to Anne Main MP in 2011 when he stated:
"Multi-user routes have been shown to be readily adopted and well appreciated by local people. Where they are done well they bolster community cohesion and create a better understanding between users."
Mr Benyon stated further:
"Horse riders are particularly vulnerable road users, and cycle routes can provide appropriate and important opportunities to avoid busy roads. There is potential for conflict in any situation where people share a public space, but the possibility of conflict is not reason enough to disregard ridden access; actual conflict could be resolved and any misplaced concerns reduced over time"
A recent letter from Mr Dan Rogerson, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management to Local Access Forum Chairs stated that '...I am particularly keen that you ensure that revised ROWIPScover access to woodland, as well as other land types, and consider how to provide increased provision for horse riders.' The further provision of bridleways is therefore supported by Central Government, as well as in the Rights of Way Improvement Plan currently in force.
It should be noted that horse riding is an activity that is hugely popular with women and children, two groups that are often targeted to increase their level of physical activity, and safe, off road riding would encourage this; being involved with horses and equestrian sport has immense physical and psychological benefits for all participants. It also encourages young people to become self sufficient, early risers, capable, caring, active and healthy, to take an interest in the environment, and committed to regular routines. The physical and psychological benefits of horse riding for the disabled have also been well documented. The creation of bridleways will therefore help to support and enhance the promotion of health and well being, for all sections of society.
The equestrian industry makes one of the largest financial contributions towards the local economy of any sport. It makes no demands for a built environment to be provided at taxpayers' expense, unlike swimmers, footballers, gymnasts etc. All horse riders need are safe off road tracks that form part of a network of bridleways that they can enjoy with their horse, whilst viewing the countryside and participating in invigorating exercise. One of the main benefits of bridleways is that they can be used and enjoyed not only by horse riders but also by walkers, cyclists and the disabled.
The proposal for the Dunton Garden Suburb (subject to another consultation process) refers to proposed bridleway and other links between Thorndon and Langdon Hills Country Parks, and this proposed link is very much welcomed as this will serve to enhance the connectivity between pockets of bridleway provision, opening up further areas for access by all. Again, we would very much appreciate it if Essex Bridleways Association can have some input into this at the initial planning stages. We will be responding separately in more detail on this particular individual consultation.
We therefore request that consideration at this early stage be given to the creation and enhancement of bridleways within the district, especially to link in with the other outlying rural areas outside of the district. Essex Bridleways Association would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to fulfil this.

The Main Infrastructure issues in Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing have not been considered.
These are Sewerage & Treatment; Medical Facilities (Provision of at least an additional Surgery) and Infant/Junior Schooling.
These are just the main issues and much deeper research needs to be carried out before any development is given the go-ahead.
Electricity distribution is already overloaded and unreliable, and was so 25 years ago. No upgrading or additions to the system have been made since.
The piecemeal development in the area does not mean that adequate provisions for infrastructure are made via S106 or CIL cannot be enforced, this needs to be done before not after the development.
To give two examples:
The Main foul drain that runs down Ingatestone high st. has flooded and given problems for years because it is only a 4" drain, and know to be crushed at one point. Nothing gets done about this but there are plenty of new residences being added to the load.
Even during the building of the Trueloves development the sewer leading out of the site overflowed down the main, Roman Road, no additional drainage outside the site has been provided, what happens when the houses on the main site start to be sold?

I understand that you and your fellow councillors together with senior officers are in the process of reviewing the Borough's Local Plan.

You have invited residents to contribute to this consultation process which I know is much appreciated by my fellow residents.

As you will know all we have by way of Public Open Space here in Shenfield is the Courage's playing field, which during the summer months is taken over most weekends by Shenfield Cricket club leaving our children and grandchildren with a very small play area.

Shenfield has a serious lack of Public open space, so, when your officers are considering their plans, can residents in Shenfield be taken into consideration and serious thought given to expanding what little space we have by extending the Courage's playing fields. This will alleviate the existing pressure and address any further shortfall if you are minded to allow substantial residential development to proceed.

I understand that you and your fellow councillors together with senior officers are in the process of reviewing the Borough's Local Plan.

You have invited residents to contribute to this consultation process which I know is much appreciated by my fellow residents.

As you will know all we have by way of Public Open Space here in Shenfield is the Courage's playing field, which during the summer months is taken over most weekends by Shenfield Cricket club leaving our children and grandchildren with a very small play area.

Shenfield has a serious lack of Public open space, so, when your officers are considering their plans, can residents in Shenfield be taken into consideration and serious thought given to expanding what little space we have by extending the Courage's playing fields. This will alleviate the existing pressure and address any further shortfall if you are minded to allow substantial residential development to proceed.

see attached

I understand that you and your fellow councillors together with senior officers are in the process of reviewing the Borough's Local Plan.

You have invited residents to contribute to this consultation process which I know is much appreciated by my fellow residents.

As you will know all we have by way of Public Open Space here in Shenfield is the Courage's playing field, which during the summer months is taken over most weekends by Shenfield Cricket club leaving our children and grandchildren with a very small play area.

Shenfield has a serious lack of Public open space, so, when your officers are considering their plans, can residents in Shenfield be taken into consideration and serious thought given to expanding what little space we have by extending the Courage's playing fields. This will alleviate the existing pressure and address any further shortfall if you are minded to allow substantial residential development to proceed.

My principle concern with this proposal is with the additional strains on infrastructure, which to be frank, I fail to see being addressed other than in the most ridiculous spin.
Over the past 10 years I have see our infrastructure deteriorate as it overloads. This will only get worse as the poplulation increases. As such, please respond to the following:
* Please confirm exactly how public transport will improve to accommodate the needs of commuters - e.g. will the platforms at Brentood station be extended so as to accommodate longer trains? You mention "more frequent" trains. Such services are already frequent, but they are overcrowded.
* I recently had to wait 3 weeks for a doctor's appointment, whereas 10 years ago I could see a doctor in a couple of days or so. What specific consideration is being afforded to new surgeries, A&E and other appropriate heathcare facilities? What is the Political Risk to any such healthcare investment given the forthcoming General Election?
* Given the problems that Basildon Council had with the Crays Hill Travellers Site, why does Brentwood Council feel obliged to establish a similar site within our borough?
* Why is the Council is being seemingly bullied into accepting the addition of 5,500 homes, which could mean >20,000 citizens arriving in the Borough, when there are large brownfield sites in the immediate surrounds of London (e.g. the Dagenham Ford site) that can easily be developed.
* What is the cost benefit for existing residents, especially with regard to Council Tax?
* Has consideration been afforded to the fact that we may actually like wide open spaces (including Greenbelt land), and believe it MUST be protected?
I will be objecting to all aspects of this proposal, unless a satisfactory explanation is given to my points above.

Thank you for your swift response. In addition, I have certain other observations:

The addition of so many homes will require additional investment in the emergency services, i.e. Police, Fire and Ambulance. What provision is being made to ensure that such a dramatic increase in population (perhaps 25-30% based on the current population estimated at 71,000) can be policed and served adequately? Crime would be a particular concern especially with the proposal for Gypsy/Travellers sites within the Borough. What steps will be taken to ensure that such Gypsies/Travellers pay Council Tax?

With regard to the problem of parking in the town centre, what provision is being made to ensure that an additional proportion of cars can actually park in what is an already inadequately provisioned town centre? The council has a poor track record with regard to road repairs (e.g. pot holes). How will roads structurally cope with such an influx of vehicles?

Please note that these and my previous points / observations apply to all aspects of this planning process including, but not limited to, the Dunton Garden Suburb plan.

I understand that you and your fellow councillors together with senior officers are in the process of reviewing the Borough's Local Plan.

You have invited residents to contribute to this consultation process which I know is much appreciated by my fellow residents.

As you will know all we have by way of Public Open Space here in Shenfield is the Courage's playing field, which during the summer months is taken over most weekends by Shenfield Cricket club leaving our children and grandchildren with a very small play area.

Shenfield has a serious lack of Public open space, so, when your officers are considering their plans, can residents in Shenfield be taken into consideration and serious thought given to expanding what little space we have by extending the Courage's playing fields. This will alleviate the existing pressure and address any further shortfall if you are minded to allow substantial residential development to proceed.

Residential and employment development must go hand-in-hand with infrastructure development; this should include roads, rail, flood risk offsetting, education and health. The focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. These are important but, given the scale of the potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area.

As previously stated, the A127 is running at near, if not actually at, capacity. No mention is made of the A128, which links the A127 and A12 and is the only direct link for West Horndon with Brentwood Town Centre. How would the increased traffic on the A128 be accommodated?

The C2C rail line is also at, or very nearly at, capacity and, with any development along its course from Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street, will be overstretched. It consists of an 'up' line and a 'down' line with no apparent room for expansion into a four-track line.

What public transport links will be developed between Brentwood, Basildon, West Horndon, and the probable Dunton Garden Suburb to link all of them with each other? The bus 'service' currently running between West Horndon (via Bulphan) and Brentwood is not the most useful.

Pressure on other services, such as education and health, also needs to be planned for before any actual residential building takes place.

see attached

Hospitals are already full to crisis levels in our area. There is no chance that this situation will be fixed within 15 years even without 20-25% population increases. The NHS will never be able to respond to the challenge of new, fully staffed hospitals in that timescale.

Policing. Promote higher visibility of policing. Reconsider town centre uses to relieve pressure on policing. For example night time economy links to antisocial behaviour.

There is limited infastructure at present in my immediate area & I doubt you would increase that to support the needs of 5500 homes, 2 adults, 2 children equals 22000 dependants in a semi rural & predominantly greenbelt area.

Any expansion along the A128 would put more strain on a road that already is well over capacity during rush hour.

The transport infrastructure in and around Herongate and Ingrave (especially around the junctions in Herongate) are already creaking at the seams.

Site 028C & 192 are impractical not only for the environmental impact they will have but also the massive impact they would have on the village's road system.

Site 028C & 192 are also described as a "special landscape area" and should therefore be exempt from development - less protected areas should be developed.

Development must not increase the challenges to the boroughs infrastructure i.e. small enough not to create a significant demand on the current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create / improve infrastructure to meet the need
Whilst transport is considered the focus appears to be on Cross rail and links to Brentwood town centre. Given the scale of the development proposed within the A127 Corridor a complete new strategy needs to be considered for this area. The C2C rail service is currently at capacity during rush hour and extremely highlighly used outside of that time.; the station car park is full and the platforms would need to be extended.
The A12 and A127 is considered highly however the A128 needs to be considered as this road is currently congested at key times and access out of West Horndon is extremely difficult at times

The local needs must be examined in far more detail. This is a good list of things to consider, but far more consultation must take place,

see attached

You have considered the main issues. The current road infrastructure is inadequate as the roads are crumbling under the traffic using it at this time. Any increase in heavy lorries would effectively close down the villages as the roads fall apart. The number of schools in the area will not be able to cope with a big increase in numbers. Most are working to capacity as it is.

Mountnessing Parish Council (MPC) would like to make the following comments for consideration by Brentwood Borough Council:

MPC prefers to consider and comment on actual planning applications when they are made. It believes that it would not be appropriate to nominate development sites and opportunities in the parish as it could well be imposing decisions on future members of MPC during the lifetime of the LDP. In this way it is felt that no advance recommendation or commitment will be made for any development so that careful consideration can be made at the appropriate time so as to weigh the needs and requirements prevailing at the point in time.

MPC recognises the importance of the Parish in respect of the A12 corridor and the limited opportunities for key developments that can make use of the village facilities, bus routes and transport links (including Cross Rail) within the village envelope. Whilst coalescence is an issue for consideration the A12 creates an obvious division between Mountnessing and Ingatestone that prevents them from ever being linked. With this in mind the challenge of coalescence for MPC is seen as the development of the green corridor that separates the urban area of Shenfield from the semi rural areas that surround it. Even though the A12 would still create a break it is felt that developing Officers Meadows would bring Mountnessing into a continuum of building with very little separation from the urban area.

MPC does have concerns about one specific site. This relates to the possibility of Ingatestone Garden Centre becoming a residential development. This would add a dense area of dwellings to what is seen more as outer areas of Ingatestone. Such a development would not be close schools, public transport or medical facilities and should not therefore be considered suitable for housing.

MPC would like to ensure that building density, building styles and street scene are considerations that are given a high level of importance in any potential development. MPC will always want to preserve the 'village feel' of Mountnessing and will always strive to make the right recommendations to ensure that we keep the village how residents would like it to be.

The Parish Council request that the following proposals be given serious consideration by the Borough Council:

- Addressing the need for one bedroom social dwellings to allow existing, and mainly, elderly residents to downsize.
-The use of shared ownership/first time buyer initiatives to help young people to get on to the housing ladder.
- Providing for an increase in the number of bungalows which are in demand by the population in general and also by the projected rise in the number of elderly residents.

MPC has very serious concerns over developments proceeding with little regard to the impacts they will have on the existing infrastructure. MPC would want to see that the fresh water supply can provide sufficient pressure to all properties and also that sewerage can be properly drained and processed even in times of high demand such as heavy rainfall. Additionally the Education Authority should ensure that there are sufficient school places for all children that move into the area and that there are additional healthcare facilities provided to cover all residents.

The Parish Council would like to give consideration to the desirability of reclassifying the parish boundary within the Brentwood Local Development Plan. The present boundary does not accurately represent the village's entrance and egress and the Parish Council will arrange to discuss the issues involved with the Borough's Planning Team.

see attached. (OFFICER RESPONSE ONLY, OFFICIAL RESPONSE TBC)

I disagree with your suggestion that development on greenfield sites in the greenbelt would be needed, and am not convinced by your calculation that only 2500 homes can be built in urban brownfield sites, which appears to be based on evidence from your Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Main Report & Appencies, which is dated October 2011. Specifically, §3.17 seems a bit out of date. Although it may have been reasonable to rule out flats as a viable development in 2011, the housing market has picked up since then, so it is no longer tenable to argue that "in the current climate such units [flats/apartments] are not proving to be popular". This assertion, which I consider out of date, is significant because it informs the criteria for what density of housing should be adopted. Specifically, Table 3/1 is incredibly biased against high-density housing: it effectively rules out terraced housing in "All other villages [that is, other than Brentwood/Shenfield/Ingatestone centre/W. Horndon centre/Doddinghurst centre], including sites adjoining the edge of villages". It also effectively rules out having flats outside of the "Brentwood centre, Shenfield centre plus sites on the main roads coming out of these centres".

All of these assumptions above are contrary to the evidence that flats and terraced houses ARE highly sought-after in Brentwood, even when located outside town centres. Consider the Clement's Park/former Warley Hospital site, which has many flats, yet is an incredibly popular neighbourhood, despite many of the housing units being completed during the recession (as observed by the report on Objectively Assessed Housing Needs, which points out that recent completions are bucking national trends, and thus may have given an overestimate for future need, see §5.28).

For these reasons, I think it would be far better to develop a limited number of brownfield sites, investing heavily in good public transport infrastructure for them, and leaving greenfield sites in the greenbelt wholly undeveloped.

In summary, it is possible that the "objectively assessed" need for housing may be an overestimate (as the report admits), and the bias in favour of low-density development must be revised, especially in light of the fact that flats are very much in demand (in any case, the greenbelt is too valuable to compromise just because developers and estate agents, some of whom seem to be rather cosy with Brentwood's elected councillors, notably Russell Quirk (insofar as he owns an estate agent), prefer houses to flats).

An important priority for green infrastructure must be the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. This is not even mentioned in the above description. Such a glaring omission needs to be rectified if the local authority is to be seen to comply with its obligations and legal duty to conserve biodiversity. This is recognised and formalised within Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, which states:
(1) "Every public body must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity"
(3) "Conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat." (This is significant as it places a duty on all local authorities to conserve wider biodiversity in addition to the statutory protection given to certain sites and species.)

Local authorities also have important obligations in implementing the national Biodiversity Action Plan. This means that a local authority is required to demonstrate that:
* biodiversity conservation and enhancement is appropriately integrated throughout all departmental policies and activities
* all staff, managers and elected members understand how biodiversity issues relate to their own decisions and actions
* it provides sustained support to local biodiversity initiatives, such as Local Biodiversity Action Plans, Biological Records Centres and Local Site systems
* biodiversity, in particular Species and Habitats of Principle Importance, is properly protected and enhanced in line with statutory nature conservation obligations
* it has access to professional ecological expertise and up-to-date biodiversity information
* it reports on progress towards national and local biodiversity targets.

The aim of the biodiversity duty is to raise the profile of biodiversity in England and Wales, so that the conservation of biodiversity becomes properly embedded in all relevant policies and decisions made by public authorities. Planning policies and decisions must reflect and where appropriate promote relevant EU obligations and statutory requirements.

The scale of the map, even when enlarged, is such that the boundaries of the individual sites are not clear, even when read with the descriptions in the appendix. One obvious concern is the capacity of the existing, small primary schools in the area, and even the secondary schools to cope with significantly more pupils, which would be an inevitable consequence of developing on a large scale anywhere, e.g. Roman Road, the Garden Centre and adjacent land. Similar concerns apply to the capacity of the public transport system.

You have not considered the fact that the A127 carries a lot of traffic from the densely commercial areas between Southend, Basildon and London. It is at breaking point already, and has speed restrictions and regular accidents. The c2c rail network is poor, and very overcrowded, and will suffer if they remove the Laindon starter trains, as has been suggested. There is limited to no secondary school provisions along the nearby A127 corridor, so all students will be travelling to schools in the North of the borough anyway, congesting the roads in the process.

The current roads around Brentwood and Hutton are very congested especially in the morning rush hour.
Energy infrastructure needs to be considered.
The borough needs to increase cycle paths substantially please.
Crossrail in itself will create significant extra traffic and volumes of people in and around Shenfield and Hutton.
The A12 is also very congested at peak times.
An increase in in pupil numbers at schools such as St Martin's will cause further congestion and road safety issues.

FINAL DRAFT
Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council
Response to Consultation on Brentwood Strategic Growth Options

Assumptions:

1. The six thousand plus building requirement from the Government is fixed.
2. This implies a 20 - 25% growth in Brentwood's population from incomers alone by 2030.
3. The only way that there is any possibility of this huge rate of growth being sustainable is to make an equally huge investment in infrastructure.

It is obvious that piecemeal developments will not make possible any significant income from "106" or similar type commitments making large developments obligatory. Necessary infrastructure improvements would be impossible.

It is equally clear that good quality, productive, agricultural land should be avoided when selecting locations for enormous developments of the type required. If the UK is to grow at this rate, feeding the resident population will become difficult, particularly in a world that is becoming increasingly unstable.

To apply the above to the situation in Herongate and Ingrave; all of the farm land to the east of the A128 (Brentwood Road) as far as Hutton and Billericay is in current productive use and should be left to help feed the country. Additionally, this agricultural land, particularly if, as seems likely, Brentwood Borough is absorbed into London, will be a part of the greenbelt separating our Borough from Billericay and Wickford. The vast majority of this land has very poor access roads which again would make it very unsuitable for large developments.

Of the remaining option sites in the two villages, all are small. The majority have accessibility problems. However, two sites, one opposite Button Common and the other next to the Ingrave Johnston School, are potentially accessible directly from the Brentwood Road. Were these sites removed from the greenbelt by the LDP process, many reasons would remain for not using either of them.

The Brentwood Road (A128) is heavily loaded and has a bottleneck through Herongate and Ingrave. Gridlock is regularly caused by the various junctions through the villages; Billericay Road and the Petrol Station are good examples. Vetoing any new junctions on the A128 would be an excellent way of not making matters worse. In the event that, as mooted, major developments occur in West Horndon and/or Dunton Garden Suburb then the idea of having additional junctions in the bottleneck becomes ludicrous.

These two sites have another common factor; both form a part of the Thames Chase Woodlands. The designations were formally established between the Borough and the Thames Chase organisation. A commitment was made by the Brentwood Borough Council to act for Thames Chase in protecting the sites from harm as special landscape areas and as wildlife habitats. Both areas are proven to support prolific quantities of wildlife. The site opposite Button Common is a County Wildlife site and the other has recently been subjected to detailed ecological studies for mammals, reptiles, amphibians and bats providing proof of the prolific presence of many species in each category. We assume that Brentwood Borough would not even consider reneging on such a formal commitment to Thames Chase. Further, the site opposite Button Common is sandwiched between two conservation areas which would be very badly degraded by building a number of blocks of flats there. Similarly, the site between Hillcrest Nursery and Ingrave Johnston School is the last remaining greenbelt area preventing the conjoining of Ingrave and Herongate. These are two separate villages and residents very much wish them to remain so.

Greenbelt and green spaces should be preserved wherever possible. Footpaths and bridles path should be maintained. Provision of cycle paths should be increased substantially. Agriculture i.e. food growth should be maintained in existing farmland areas.
Nature conservation should also be important.