Q1: Yes - Assuming the Dunton project is approved the balance of housing required should be allocated fairly evenly over the three areas.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes - A12 Corridor. Major intrusions into the Green Belt, such as Officers Meadow must be avoided. However some development by the Mountnessing roundabout on the old scrap yard and associated with a redeveloped BP garage (currently a road hazard) is acceptable.

Q4: No comment as I do not know the area well. Local views are the important ones.

Q5: Yes - Only to limited extent as infill on brownfield sites are to be preferred.

Q6: Limited extensions of villages still creates a community but Greenfield sites may be isolated and not part of the community.

Q7: Yes - Subject to largely respecting Green Belt.

Q8: Yes for Brentwood Central but not for lesser shopping areas which are only adequate as they are at present (e.g. Shenfield).

Q9: Yes - Shenfield and Hutton are short of public space and playing fields.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 2
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land : 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes

Q13: Traffic and parking. Redevelopment of Shenfield station forecourt and the adjacent British Rail owned properties. Extra parking requirement for Crossrail is likely to be limited in spite of what press says.

I note the Council's receipt and registration of an application for the redevelopment of the former scrap yard for predominantly residential use. I act for Mr Roy Farrugia the owner of Chainbridge Farm which is directly to the north west of the application site. Mr Farrugia has detailed permission for the conversion of his commercial premises to a large residential dwelling in addition to the existing dwelling on the site, Ref: 13/01097. Chainbridge Farm site is approximately 2.5 acres.

I believe that the outline application for the scrap yard site is being made ahead of the adoption of any site allocation document although I am aware that the site is approximately 2.5 acres.

The development as outlined if approved would have a significant effect on Chainbridge Farm. My client and I feel that a more comprehensive residential development of Chainbridge Farm would be appropriate in the circumstances and therefore would ask that the site be included as part of the allocation in this area. I enclose a site plan for identification purposes and I look forward to receiving your response.

Mountnessing currently suffers from water/sewage systems that are currently at capacity - any further development in the village will need to see major work on the infrastructure to ensure existing residents are not further impacted.

There is a need for smaller 1/2 bed affordable properties in Mountnessing particularly for elderly residents who wish to downsize and free up larger homes.

The village envelope should be investigated as there has recently been proposals for appropriate infill development that have been rejected due to being located 'outside of the village boundary' when it actual fact, most residents would consider the village to be a lot longer than is currently classified. Mountnessing would begin at Lower Road and end up towards the slip road on to the A12. The Council has recently turned down several sensible planning applications for schemes that would more than like add to the village's street scene.

018 Thoby Priory
This site has been earmarked for development for many years and would be welcomed by many residents. It would be most suited to a development of family homes. Thought will need to be given to affordable housing provision as the site is quite remote from the rest of Mountnessing. Also, the impact on water/sewage services in the area would need to be taken into account.
Appropriate access arrangements will need to be made as the site is off a sharp bend where traffic flows at high speeds. Also, the impact on traffic flows at peak times at the top of Thoby Lane will need to be taken into account.

073 Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School
This development has been vastly improved by the developers over the last year. They have come forward with a scheme of circa 18 family homes and have looked in great detail at the access arrangement off Crosby Close. This has the potential to be a well-designed development that fits in with the context of the local area.

079a/079b/079c Land adjacent to Ingatestone byass
Land in this area would not be suitable for development as it would lead to coalescence between Mountnessing and Ingatestone which should be retained as two separate villages. It is vital that greenery should be retained as a buffer between the A12 and future housing development.

094 Land between 375 and 361 Roman Road / 105 Land between 339 and 361 Roman Road
This would constitute appropriate infill development to Roman Road streetscene. As long as it is sympathetically designed to be in-keeping with other properties in the area, this would be in keeping with the ribbon of development that fronts Roman Road.

107 Mountnessing Roundabout
This site has been earmarked for development for many years. It is very pleasing to see that the developer's have moved away from what was a very oppressive-looking hotel scheme and are concentrating towards housing. Housing design should be in context with the rest of the village. Density is an issue on this site particularly as having 100+ cars accessing/exiting the development at peak time will most likely put a strain on the traffic at the roundabout.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the strategic growth options.

Please find attached RAG sheet summarising Anglian Water's initial thoughts on the sites included in Appendix 1:'List of Suggested Sites'. It should be noted each site is assessed individually and the collective impact of sites on the Water Recycling Centre ( previously referred to as Sewage Treatment Works or Wastewater Treatment) or the foul sewerage network for sites in the same catchment has not been assessed.

Encroachment

It is noted sites 028b,30,34,36,38b,107,173,179,183,192 and 215 all have pumping stations on site or close by. A 15 metre distance between the boundary of the pumping station and the curtilage of any new dwelling should be maintained in order to reduce the risk of nuisance or loss of amenity. The design layout should take this into account.

Surface Water disposal
All developments should adhere to the drainage hierarchy and utilise sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) as much as possible. Disposal to the public surface water piped network should be seen as a last resort. Under no circumstances will surface water be accepted into the foul sewerage network. It is noted that Brentwood propose to develop around 2500 dwellings on brownfield sites and this could be an opportunity to reduce the overall flood risk in Brentwood through re-development by applying the same design standards on developments on previously developed sites as undeveloped sites. Evidence that the developments had followed the surface water management hierarchy will help to ensure infiltration is considered ahead of maintaining connection to sewers. Early engagement is key to ensuring adequate surface water management measures are included.


Pre development service
We offer a pre development service to developers and would encourage the prospective developer to contact us at the earliest opportunity to discuss drainage requirements to serve their proposal. Details including application form can be found at:

http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/developers/planning/

Specifcally within Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing Ward:
Residential:
018 Thoby Priory - Agree
042 Bell Mead - Agree
057A & B Meadowside - Object - Greenbelt
064 Everglades - Already developed
073 Adjacent to Primary School - Object- Access & Greenbelt
078 Parklands - Object - Greenbelt
078A/B/C - Object - Coalescence/Greenbelt & Effect of A12 noise ( see Planning Decisions relating to Malyons Yard, Roman Road Officer's comments.)
094 No.375 to 361 Roman Road - Agree Greenbelt infill.
095A & B Water Meadows - Object - Green Belt & Village Amenity
098 Ingleton House - Object - OK in principle but where will you move the OAPs too, there is nothing else in the village.
105 No.339 to 361 Roman Road - Agree Greenbelt infill
106 Land adjacent to Ingatestone Garden Centre - Object- as agreed at exit of Brentwood Depositories and temporary use for A12 works to be returned to Greenbelt (and regrassed over). Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
107 Land at Mountnessing Roundabout. - Agree "Brownfield"
128 Ingatestone Garden Centre (In Mountnessing) - Strongly object - current use is Brownfield but on a Green belt site. Coalescence.Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
136 Land at Church Crescent - Agree
142 Land NE Thoby Farm, St. Anne's Road - Agrre - Farm buildings
153 Land to South Fryerning Lane -Object Strongly - Greenbelt, Prescence of Public Footpath through plot, Traffic outside Infants School almost opposite is already a nightmare. Two Cottages opposite the plot have benn compulsory purchased by Highways agency for A12 widening, the same would apply to this plot. Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
225 Nutshell, Stock Lane - Agree
GT005 Poplar's Farm Roman Road Ingatestone? According to the OS map this lies in Margaretting Parish?
GT015 Roman Triangle - Decision already made
GT016 Willow Farm - Agree subject to S106 agreement currently under discussion.

Commercial:
079C - Agree - Old Chelmsford Borough Tip site, Highways Agency depot & Currently leased to company working on A12.
106 - Object-Land adjacent to Ingatestone Garden Centre - Object- as agreed at exit of Brentwood Depositories and temporary use for A12 works to be returned to Greenbelt (and regrassed over).
107 - Land at Mountnessing Roundabout - Agree

I would like to register my objections to the proposed development of 130 houses on the site of Ingatestone Garden Centre. These are as follows:

1. Burnthouse Lane is an extremely pleasant area in which to live, illustrated by the number of people like myself who have lived here for many years, and we welcome newcomers to our lane. However, the impact this development would have would be dreadful, especially concerning the extra cars involved, not only those owned by the residents but the ever increasing number of vans delivering to the houses.

2. For many years there have been drainage and flooding problems in our immediate area and this can only be exacerbated by any major developments nearby, and of course the associated removal of trees would only add further to the problem.

3. By their very nature country people live side by side with nature and as such we are most concerned by any destruction of natural habitats. All manner of wildlife visit our gardens and one neighbour regularly sees Kingfishers in this field.

4. For 70 years at least this site has been that of a garden nursery and as such one would assume green belt land, no doubt you can clarify this for me.

If I have to mention alternative sites for development I would favour the Mountnessing scrapyard or Thoby Priory as I feel these would have less immediate impact on the lives of Mountnessing residents.

Lastly I should be most grateful for an acknowledgement of this email and would request that certainly the residents of Burnthouse Lane were kept more informed of the current situation as it was only by chance that a neighbour knew about the meeting from 'facebook' and I am sure that many are not aware that they need to raise any objections by Tuesday.

Hello, with regard to the above subject, I would like to add my opinion. I realise that I have missed the 17th Feb deadline for completing and returning the questionnaire, but there is a reason why I was unable to and I hope that you will allow me to submit my views. I am currently in China on business, with an unreliable hotel internet connection which crashed the few times I tried to access the questionnaire, hence my submitting my views in this manner at work.
It would seem to me that the land at the A12/Mountnessing roundabout (which used ot be a breakers yard) would satisfy the housing growth requirements of our town while being one of the relatively few options that would add to the main downside of future building in Brentwood, namely an infrastructure that cannot cope with further growth. I am sure you are well aware of the chronic traffic problems that Brentwood is struggling with, we also have a problem with overcrowding at our doctors surgeries.
The site I mentioned would have the advantage of addressing these concerns by allowing a fully integrated approach rather than random developments shoehorned in small parcels of land inside the town. It would not increase town traffic because it is accessed by the A12, it could incorporate its own doctors surgery, maybe have some local stores allowed for and with its own bus service to Shenfield and Brentwood would seem to be a logical way of fulfilling the council's obligation to provide more housing as per the government's targets without overloading Brentwood's already overstretched infrastructure. The housing could incorporate the low cost housing now required for developments while being perfectly situated for transport with bus access to stations and the A12.
Sorry I missed the deadline, but as a resident of Brentwood for 35 years I feel strongly about this matter and I hope you will accept my views.

I am instructed by Development Securities (37) Ltd to submit a representation upon the Strategic Growth Options Consultation version of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan. The representation relates specifically to Land at Mountnessing Roundabout (Former Scrapyard), Roman Road, Mountnessing. Development Securities (37) Lts are the owners of the Mountnessing Roundabout site.

The site has been historically known as the Mountnessing Scrapyard site. However, so as to avoid confusion, the representation refers to the site as the Land at Mountnessing Roundabout site. The site has a Local Plan site reference 107.

The Strategic Growth Options Consultation document makes reference to Land at Mountnessing Roundabout as follows:-

'107. Land at Mountnessing Roundabout (former Scrapyard) was proposed for employment uses in the 2013 Preferred Options consultation. An existing planning permission exists for houses/leisure, although the Council has been informed this is unlikely to be developed due to viability. An alternative use for the site could be residential'.

For information, the above paragraph should read that an existing planning permission exists for hotel/leisure, rather than houses.

Accordingly, the Strategic Growth Option Consultation document now allocates the site for both employment and residential. Development Securities (37) Ltd welcome this flexibility. For the avoidance of doubt, Development Securities (37) Ltd continue to request that the site be removed from the Green Belt.

For information, you will be aware that Land at Mountnessing Roundabout is the subject of a live planning application for residential development. The application proposals are consistent with the allocations contained in the Strategic Growth Options Consultation document and therefore should be supported.

see attached

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Infrastructure in north of borough suggests expansion there should be minimal.

Q4: Yes, but not exclusively. Those living in the south of borough should not face all expansion. Infrastructure here limited too.

Q5: Yes. The site at Mountnessing roundabout [site ref: 107] has been abandoned for a long time.

Q6: Brownfield sites first.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - as long as parking needs are catered for. It's unrealistic to assume public transport is sufficient.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 3

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes.

Q13: Roads to reduce traffic jams in Brentwood and Shenfield town centres at peak times - if those sites are selected for new homes.

Q1: No - I and most people I speak to see no pressing need for growth in Brentwood, we feel this is being thrust upon us by central government. If there was local planning autonomy the concept would be thrown out.

Q2: No - Too much Green Belt areas that the Council have chosen to call 'grazing'.

Q3: Yes - 107 could be residential. 042 Has planning permission but has not been developed so much for 'urgent need'. The housing proposal for the Crown, Ingatestone seemed reasonable with good parking facilities. The Parish Council appeared even.

Q5: No - There is a need for villages to keep identity and not become a ribbon sprawl.

Q6: Brownfield only yes/no boxes not valid for multiple options.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes - Oh for Brentwood to be more like Chelmsford.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 4
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 2

Q11: What a silly presentation how can these be 'occasional' or 'frequent'? Was somebody paid to produce this?

See attached.

Q1: Yes. Accept there is a need for growth but not to alter existing small community villages.

Q2: No.

Q3: A large space near to A127 which does not effect the living conditions of a small village community seems a more acceptable choice to progress development. [site ref 200]

Q4: Dunton site. [site ref 200]

Q5: Yes. The old scrap yard of the A12 towards Mountnessing has yet to be developed? [site ref 107]

Q6: Better to develop independent sites on edges with access to highway network.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. With a fair mix of shops retail not just restaurants and bars.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Community Spirit: 5

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3
Other - Peaceful tranquil spots: -

Q12: Yes. The fact that you are completely changing a small village whose facilities are appropriate to its residents.

Q13: Developing small new communities near t main road access not changing existing small areas.
Q1: Yes. Accept there is a need for growth but not to alter existing small community villages.

Q2: No.

Q3: A large space near to A127 which does not effect the living conditions of a small village community seems a more acceptable choice to progress development.

Q4: Dunton site. [site ref 200]

Q5: Yes. The old scrap yard of the A12 towards Mountnessing has yet to be developed? [site ref 107]

Q6: Better to develop independent sites on edges with access to highway network.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. With a fair mix of shops retail not just restaurants and bars.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Community Spirit: 5

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3
Other - Peaceful tranquil spots: -

Q12: Yes. The fact that you are completely changing a small village whose facilities are appropriate to its residents.

Q13: Developing small new communities near t main road access not changing existing small areas.