My submission is a view on the proposed sites for the central Mountnessing area in general.

The A12 corridor has only two access points in the Brentwood area from the M25 junction right through to Chelmsford district. The main junction is by the Shenfield roundabout and the other, for Ingatestone, is only a partial junction allowing London bound traffic a on and off slip whereas Chelmsford bound traffic only has an on slip way and Northbound Ingatestone traffic has to all go through Mountnessing from the Shenfield junction. I would suggest that the Highways Agency is asked to consider creating an off slip way to ease traffic flows created by new housing coming on stream in the next few years.

My view is that development opportunities should be given priority where all the basic needs of residents are within easy reach and infrastructure already exists. This would be where public transport is within walking distance and there are adequate pedestrian footpaths available. With this in mind the infill green belt areas within the village envelope should be favourably considered before any developments away from the village centre. Thoby Priory is an exception to this as it will deal effectively with a difficult historical brownfield use of green belt and it will create a separate community within a mile of the village centre. Sites that do not impact street scene being behind existing housing should also be favoured against those sites that change the openness and feel of the main road street scene. Building density and style is another consideration as well planned and designed developments will enhance the area and bring positive gains to the village community.

The sites put up for consideration at the Ingatestone Garden Centre and land adjacent to the recycling centre would create coalescence between Mountnessing and Ingatestone that can be seen clearly in the image below [see attached].

The orange line shows what I feel is a natural boundary for the residential zone in the village centre. The two zones marked in yellow are shown as site references 073, 095a and 095b from the draft document. These sites present a natural infill and an acceptable expansion to the village centre. On site 95b affordable dwellings can be situated to be alongside the BBC housing estate whilst the rest of the site can have housing to reflect the private homes blend found in the area. The area is well screened and lays lower than adjacent existing houses to a screened boundary with the A12. Access to site 095b, direct from Roman Road, has been secured meaning that residents have easy access to the main road and public transport. A foot/cycle pathway could be formed to lead from the site through the Water Meadows, site 095a, to Church Road as a short route to the village centre.

I would ask that my submission is carefully considered as it is a good example of strategic growth in a area that can support additional homes.

[views submitted are personal and not that of the Parish Council in terms of the respondent's position as Parish Councillor]

see attached

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

See attached.

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 wish to object to the release of land for housing along Roman Road where the garden center is and the vacant land adjoining it.
There is an increasing problem with parking along that section of Roman Road mainly due to insufficient parking for the houses in Harebridge Crescent. Over the last month I have had several cars parked illegally outside the front of my house within the dropped curb of my driveway, obstructing the public footpath and my vision.
Added to this although the speed limit is 40, the majority of the traffic speeds up to 60 when they get part of the way down Roman Road. Because the visibility is often so bad I am halfway across the road with cars speeding towards me in the centre of the road. This situation will only get worse if more houses are built, making Roman Road unsafe to drive in or for the children to cross to get to school.

see attached.

see attached

see attached

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.

REPRESENTATION IN RELATION TO SITE 073 LAND ADJACENT MOUNTNESSING PRIMARY SCHOOL

Introduction

These planning representations have been prepared by Savills UK on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to Brentwood Borough Council's Strategic Growth Options Consultation. The representations specifically relate to site 073 (SHLAA site G093), Land Adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School, which is being promoted by Crest Nicholson.

A Design Development Framework has been prepared which identifies the benefits and opportunities for the site which is enclosed as Appendix 1.

We set out below responses to the relevant questions as out in the Strategic Growth Options Consultation document.

Q1: Do you agree with the broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No.

Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) recognise that in order to address the Borough's significant housing shortfall against Objectively Assessed Need (OAN), Green Belt land release is required to accommodate an additional 3,000 homes during the next 15 years.

We support 'Growth Option B' which promotes growth along the A12 corridor. It is a logical approach to locate development along key arterial routes which already benefit from good transport links. Sites within this corridor need to be well contained by defensive, permanent boundaries and represent an appropriate scale in relation to the settlement they adjoin (supported by localised ONS data on household growth).

Mountnessing is illustrated on figure 6b of the Strategic Growth Options Consultation document which identifies the key settlements along the corridor.

Historically, there has been little new development within Mountnessing which has had a negative impact upon local services, led to a shortfall of housing and Mountnessing Primary School in need of additional pupils on its roll (currently circa 15-30 pupils under capacity).

As the consultation document acknowledges "it is important to consider allowing villages to grow in order to provide for local need". This approach not only seeks to meet local, settlement specific housing needs to address localised affordability issues but it is also necessary to retain the working age population in villages to ensure the viability and vitality of local shops and services.

We acknowledge that these villages (such as Mountnessing) have a rural setting so it is also imperative that suitable sites can be delivered in the short term by a housebuilder with a proven track record of delivering high quality, low density, well-landscaped schemes. Crest Nicholson is the current National Housebuilder of the Year and is locally-based in Brentwood.

We object to the quantum of 4-6,000 homes that has been proposed at the Dunton Garden Suburb (Growth Option C) on the periphery of the Borough, which would not assist in meeting the existing settlement specific housing and socio-economic needs within Brentwood and especially the villages throughout the Borough.

The principle of an urban extension to the settlement of Basildon is not objected to but the quantum of cross-boundary development suggested is not logical, nor justified by any meaningful evidence. The area within the administrative boundary of Brentwood has a number of environmental constraints and the quantum proposed will require a significant upgrade to strategic infrastructure. The time frames for the delivery of such an extensive development will not address the acute local housing shortage within Brentwood that exists now. It is considered that reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need, and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations.

It is further considered that the only viable, appropriate and logical area for housing within the Dunton Garden Suburb area is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Basildon Town.


Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised within each of these areas?

We agree with the Council's consideration of Green Belt release because there is insufficient brownfield land to meet its objectively assessed need (OAN) (as indicated at paragraph 1.4 of the consultation document). We would reassure the Council that Hundal v South Buckinghamshire (DC 2012) demonstrates that housing need is capable of justifying a change in the Green Belt boundaries. Taking this point into practice, St Albans City and District Council (another Metropolitan Green Belt authority) is preparing its Local Plan to meet full OAN with Green Belt release on the basis that 'exceptional circumstances' do exist because there is insufficient brownfield capacity and no alternative locations beyond the Green Belt. This situation is materially the same as can be observed in Brentwood Borough and we subsequently support the consideration of Green Belt release. Therefore, where there are suitable, sustainably located Green Belt sites adjoining villages such as
Mountnessing, they should be released for residential development.

Whilst the document refers to meeting local housing need through the release of land within the Green Belt at each village, clarification is required on how this is defined. It is essential that the most appropriate site is allocated at each village with the capacity to meet settlement specific needs in the short to medium term (for example site 073). As mentioned previously, this is crucial to maintain the viability/vitality of village shops and services.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

This document specifically supports the site at Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School (site 073 / SHLAA site G093) which we consider should be released from the Green Belt, in order to meet the existing and future housing and socio-economic requirements of Mountnessing.

A Local Housing Requirements Study prepared by Barton Wilmore concludes that the projected household growth for Mountnessing will generate a need for circa 6 dwellings per year.

The Land adjacent to Mountenessing Primary school is the most sustainable housing option
at Mountnessing to meet this local housing need in the short to medium term.

The appended Design Development Framework demonstrates how the Site could be sensitively developed to provide a sustainable, high quality, low density scheme. A design led approach has resulted in a latest indicative proposal of 15-18 units (reduced further from the initial 25 unit scheme shown in previous representations).

The site has a number of planning benefits:

* It is well screened, with defensible boundaries and development on four sides, ensuring minimal visual impact from the proposals.
* It would not result in any coalescence with Ingatestone and represents a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary.
* It does not serve any of the purposes of the Green Belt in accordance with the NPPF.
* No environmental or ecological constraints have been identified that would prevent its development for residential use.
* Highways have confirmed that access off Crossby Close is acceptable in principle (shared surface upgrades are currently being examined).
* The proposals would lead to the short term delivery of much needed, high quality, generously landscaped, private and affordable homes delivered by the National Housebuilder of the Year.
* The proposals would result in a number of significant socio-economic and community benefits (see page 15 of the Design Development Framework).

The Local Plan evidence base identifies sites that are included within the SHLAA (2011) and "Draft Site Assessment" (2013) as being suitable, available and achievable within the Plan
period.

Within the SHLAA and Site Assessment "Land Adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School, Mountnessing" is identified as the only suitable residential site at Mountnessing. BBC states that the site is capable of delivering circa 35 dwellings within the first five years of the Plan period. BBC further states in the Assessment that the site is:

"Suitable: Comprises ploughed agricultural land with no buildings on site. Site is bound by residential properties and Primary School and therefore impact on the open countryside would be minimal. The site would be suitable for development as it is on the edge of the village with associated amenities;
Available: The site is available for residential development; and
Achievable: Development at this site would be within an attractive area. Due to the location it is recommended that only low density housing would be appropriate. Contamination issues are unknown at present. Connection to infrastructure and services would be relatively low cost as the site is adjacent to existing residential development. Development would be brought forward by a medium size developer."

Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School is considered to be the only suitable site at Mountnessing to accommodate settlement specific housing needs in the short term. SHLAA Sites 094,105 and 136 only have the capacity to accommodate 1-3 dwellings whilst sites 095, 106 and 128 are entirely inappropriate in terms of scale and coalescence with Ingatestone.

Subsequently, Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School should be allocated for residential use in the next iteration of the Local Plan.

Crest Nicholson have been meeting with both Mountnessing Parish Council and Mountnessing Primary School (Headteacher and Governors) regarding the potential to develop the site for housing. There is a general recognition that the proposals would bring substantial positive benefits to the village including maintaining the future of the existing primary school, assisting to meet local housing (including affordable) needs and ensuring the short and longer term viability of local shops and services. The positive quotes below have been provided by the Primary School and Parish Council.

"With the assurance that the proposed site is well screened and secured the school has no objections in principle to the proposed development. The potential increase in pupil numbers arising from the proposed housing development is welcomed. The prospect of extending the provision of the unique education provided by Mountnessing Primary school to more children is both challenging and exciting. However, an increasing number of pupils within the present school is utilizing the school buildings and infrastructure to the full and additional facilities would be essential to accommodate an increase in roll. We would welcome a study to be undertaken by the Local Education Authority to consider our future requirements and the details of the study to be included for consideration in the Section 106 notice."

Governors of Mountnessing Primary School - Date: 12th February 2015-03-12

Following discussions with the Parish Council and a more detailed design-led assessment of the site, there has been a reduction in the number of residential properties proposed. The Parish Council do not object to the principle of residential development on the site.

'Following ongoing consultation with Crest Nicholson, we can confirm that Mountnessing
Parish Council do not object to the principle of residential development on the land
adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School. Whilst we have concerns over the Crossby
Close access we acknowledge that the reduction in the proposed number of dwellings
and sensitive treatment of the access road scheme will be helpful.'

Mountnessing Parish Council

Date: 13th February 2015

Crest Nicholson will continue to develop the plans in consultation with the Parish Council, Mountnessing Primary School and the local community.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 corridor, which of the sites
put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

As above in queston Q3, none are appropriate in this area on the periphery of the Borough.

Q5: Should the A12 corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on the edge of
urban areas?

Yes, as referred to the response to Questions 1-3.

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for Greenfield sites on the edge
of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the Green Belt)?

It is considered that the release of Greenfield sites on the edge of villages is the preferred approach. The development of Greenfield sites avoids village cramming in areas where urban capacity is already non-existent (for example in Mountnessing). This would not be a sustainable solution to the delivery new homes as it is anticipated that only a small number of homes would be built and therefore would not meet objectively assessed needs. Furthermore, small scale urban development (under 10 units) would not deliver much needed affordable housing provision.

The delivery of Greenfield sites allows for higher quality, lower density, well landscaped housing development. The delivery of larger scale development will also provide planning benefits including financial contributions to local services.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

Greater reference is required to maintaining village services and local social infrastructure.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

We consider that education should be a priority especially in relation to extending the provision of education provided by Mountnessing Primary school.

REPRESENTATION IN RELATION TO SITE 076 LAND SOUTH OF REDROSE LANE

These planning representations have been prepared by Savills UK on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to Brentwood Borough Council's Strategic Growth Options Consultation. The representations specifically relate to site 076 (SHLAA site G070A), Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore.

A Vision Statement has been prepared which identifies the benefits and opportunities for the site which is enclosed as Appendix 1.

We set out below responses to the relevant questions as out in the Strategic Growth
Options Consultation document.

Q1: Do you agree with the broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No.

We acknowledge that 'Growth Option B' (A12 Corridor) warrants consideration, particularly around Brentwood, at the top of the Borough's settlement hierarchy. However, sites within this corridor need to be well contained by defensive, permanent boundaries and represent an appropriate scale in relation to the settlement they adjoin (supported by localised ONS data on household growth). The ability to mitigate development in transport impact terms will also need to be demonstrated.

'Growth Option A' which supports the growth of villages in the north of the Borough should be given priority. As the consultation document acknowledges, "it is important to consider allowing villages to grow in order to provide for local need". This approach not only seeks to meet local, settlement specific housing needs to address localised affordability issues but it is also necessary to retain the working age population in the village to ensure the viability and vitality of local shops and services. As such, support is given to the development of the most sustainable Green Belt site/sites on the edge of villages with the capacity to meet settlement-specific housing needs. We acknowledge that the villages have a rural setting so it is also imperative that these sites can be delivered in the short term by a housebuilder with a proven track record of delivering high quality, low density, well-landscaped schemes.

Crest Nicholson is the current National Housebuilder of the Year and is a local company based in Brentwood.

We object to the quantum of 4-6,000 homes that has been proposed at the Dunton Garden Suburb (Growth Option C) on the periphery of the Borough, which would not assist in meeting the existing settlement specific housing and socio-economic needs within Brentwood and especially the villages throughout the Borough.

The principle of an urban extension to the settlement of Basildon is not objected to but the quantum of cross-boundary development suggested is not logical, nor justified by any meaningful evidence. The area within the administrative boundary of Brentwood has a number of environmental constraints and the quantum proposed will require a significant upgrade to strategic infrastructure. The time frames for the delivery of such an extensive development will not address the acute local housing shortage within Brentwood that exists now. It is considered that reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need, and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations.

It is further considered that the only viable, appropriate and logical area for housing within the Dunton Garden Suburb area is immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Basildon Town.

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised within each of these areas?

We agree with paragraph 2.15 of the Strategic Growth Options Consultation Document where it is stated that in order to provide for local need, villages should be allowed to grow, and the edge of villages could be released from the Green Belt to enable this.

We agree with the Council's consideration of Green Belt release because there is
insufficient brownfield land to meet its objectively assessed need (OAN) (as indicated at paragraph 1.4 of the consultation document). We would reassure the Council that Hundal v South Buckinghamshire (DC 2012) demonstrates that housing need is capable of justifying a change in the Green Belt boundaries. Taking this point into practice, St Albans City and District Council (another Metropolitan Green Belt authority) is preparing its Local Plan to meet full OAN with Green Belt release on the basis that 'exceptional circumstances' do exist because there is insufficient brownfield capacity and no alternative locations beyond the Green Belt. This situation is materially the same as can be observed in Brentwood Borough and we subsequently support the consideration of Green Belt release. Therefore, where there are suitable, sustainably located Green Belt sites adjoining villages such as Blackmore, they should be released for residential development.

Whilst the document refers to meeting local housing need through the release of land within the Green Belt at each village, clarification is required on how this is defined. It is essential that the most appropriate site is allocated at each village which has the capacity to meet settlement specific needs over the next 10 years (for example site 076). As mentioned previously, this is crucial to maintain the viability/vitality of village services.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

This document specifically supports the site at Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore (076) which we consider should be released from the Green Belt, in order to meet the existing and future housing and socio-economic requirements within Blackmore.

A Local Housing Requirements Study for Blackmore, prepared by Barton Wilmore (August 2013) concludes that projected household growth at Blackmore will generate a need for between circa 81- 98 dwellings over the next 20 years (or approximately 60-75 though the proposed Plan Period 2015-2030). It is considered that the Land south of Redrose Lane is the only sustainable housing option within Blackmore to meet this need in the short-to medium term.

The Vision Statement at Appendix 1 demonstrates how the Site could be sensitively developed to provide a sustainable, high quality scheme in the region of 40 residential units.

The site is suitable for a number of reasons:

The site is well screened, with defensible boundaries on four sides, ensuring that visual impact from the proposals will be minimal, and considerably less than other promoted sites;

* The site does not result in any symptoms of coalescence and is located within an area of established residential character, that presents itself as a logical extension to the existing settlement boundary;
* The site does not perform the function of preserving the setting and special character of
a historic town or any assets of historic value;
* No environmental or ecological constraints have been identified on the site that would
prevent its development for residential use; and
* The proposals would result in a number of significant socio-economic community
benefits.

Access to the site is achievable from Red Rose Lane which has been agreed in principle with Highway Officers. Pedestrian access is possible from the north-west corner of the site via a new footpath link connecting to a short section of new footway on the south side of Red Rose Lane. The new footway extends south to the existing footway that currently terminates opposite Orchard Piece, from which point existing footways facilitate walk trips to the village centre.

Within BBC's SHLAA (2011) and "Draft Site Assessment" (July 2013) which supports the Local Plan, "Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore (ref G070A)" is identified as appropriate for housing development for 89 units. It should be noted that a design-led approach has resulted in a lower-density scheme of approximately 40 residential units. The Vision Statement enclosed at Appendix 1 identifies the benefits and opportunities for the site.

BBC states in their SHLAA that the site is:
* Suitable: The site is located adjacent to the settlement boundary and contained by Redrose Lane ,Fingrith Hall Lane and Chelmsford Road. The site comprises land used for grazing. The site is bounded on one side by residential properties. Development in this location would help to support the viability and vitality of existing services and potentially provide new services
* Available: The site is available for residential development; and
* Achievable: Residential development on this site would be achievable due to its
location within an attractive area. Due to its size this site would be brought forward by a medium sized developer.

A total of 7 sites (not including the subject site) are considered in the SHLAA. Two of the sites are on brownfield land and can only achieve approximately 1 dwelling (B140 and B141). The remaining 5 sites are located on greenfield land. Three of these sites are discounted due to the unacceptable intrusion into the countryside G041, G044 south and G044 west). One other site can only achieve one dwelling (G146).

The remaining Green Belt site G070 lies to the west of the subject site. This site has many similarities due to its close proximity to the subject site. However it is more open in nature, does not have clear defensible boundaries on all sides and development would have a greater impact on existing residential properties. The site also lies to the north west of Blackmore which represents an important green gateway into the village, characterised by open space either side of Nine Ashes Road (including Blackmore Millenium Park). The north eastern part of Blackmore is distinctly different in character due to its more enclosed nature and the existing residential development along Chelmsford Road.

As such it is considered that the subject site is the only suitable site around Blackmore.

Land South of Redrose Lane (076) is being promoted by Crest Nicholson who are National Housebuilder of the Year and are fully committed to delivering a high quality, low density, well-landscaped scheme.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

As above in queston Q3, none are appropriate in this area on the periphery of the Borough.

Q5: Should the A12 corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on the edge of urban areas?

Yes, some growth is understandable given the supporting road infrastructure.

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for Greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the Green Belt)?

It is considered that the release of Greenfield sites on the edge of villages is the preferred approach. The development of Greenfield sites avoids village cramming in areas where urban capacity is already non-existent (for example in Blackmore). This would not be a sustainable solution to the delivery new homes as it is anticipated that only a small number of homes would be built and therefore would not meet objectively assessed needs.

Furthermore, small scale urban development (under 10 units) would not deliver much needed affordable housing provision.

The delivery of Greenfield sites allows for higher quality, lower density, well landscaped housing development. The delivery of larger scale development will also provide planning benefits including financial contributions to local services.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

Greater reference is required to maintaining village services and social infrastructure.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

We consider that education should be a priority.

Commissioning school places in Essex 2013/18 (2014) confirms that Blackmore Primary School currently has capacity to accommodate an additional 17 pupils. The provision of family housing on Land at Redrose Lane would be beneficial in terms of ensuring sufficient numbers on roll to meet this capacity. This would have a positive impact on the existing school and wider community with more children given access to extend learning opportunities. It will also ensure that the village has a wider age diversity which will enable the retention of a working age population in future years and secure the long term viability of shops and services.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Q1: No - 078 Parklands High Street, Ingatestone. This area is Green Open Space and must be retained as an open space in our boundary to Margaretting.

Q2: No - 128 Ingatestone Garden Centre. This centre is used by the residents round the area and is essential as an amenity close by.

Q3: Yes.

Q5: No.

Q6: No.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Leisure/ Recreation: 3

See attached.

see attached.