Comment

Representation ID: 585

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Add "including Village Design Statements" after the word produced.

The Ingatestone Village Design Statement contains details of the way its residents would like to see developments take place and is therefore relevant.

Comment

Representation ID: 586

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

This states that additional planning documents should only be used when justified. We believe Village Design Statements and Conservation Area appraisals are documents that should be used to inform the planning process and that the Local Plan should reflect their use.

Object

Representation ID: 587

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Concern that the Draft Local Plan was produced before the consultation on the SA had been carried out and the information in our response o this consultation may not have been taken into consideration. We have therefore enclosed a copy of this earlier SA response and you to ensure that the issues raised by us are considered in conjunction with this response.

Comment

Representation ID: 588

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

We seek the assurance that Conservation Area Appraisal recommendations when accepted will be implemented and that the Local Plan will reflect the importance of this. The need for a robust procedure to be introduced for Locally Listed properties also needs to appear in the Local Plan to give greater protection to 'at risk' buildings.

Comment

Representation ID: 589

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Re SO7, We would like the words "from inappropriate development" to be inserted after safeguard the Green Belt. It is important to make it clear what the Plan seeks to safeguard.

Comment

Representation ID: 591

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Further sentence should read "produce additional facilities in areas not well served". There is a need in Ingatestone to provide additional children play facilities.

Comment

Representation ID: 592

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Again you make references to infrastructure constraints and talk about a modest level for development however, you allocate 130 dwellings? to us this is a contradiction.

Object

Representation ID: 594

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Alternative Option 2, it is stated that Ingatestone has been rejected because of infrastructure constraints but then recommend the building of 130 houses on the Garden Centre. Although not in our parish we believe there is a need to reconsider this issue.

Support

Representation ID: 596

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

We welcome the statement that apart from a few minor changes there will be no changes to GB boundaries.

Object

Representation ID: 600

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Although the Parish Council was involved in the 2009 exercise the question of developing on the Garden Centre was not put forward. When was potential use considered and what reviews of its suitability have been carried out? We presume that for it to be included in the list of proposed sites the problems of sewerage treatment have been overcome. Is this the position?

Reference to infrastructure constraints in Ingatestone is made and mention of modest level of development proposed. However, elsewhere in the Plan 130 new houses are recommended to be built on the parish boundary?