Support

Representation ID: 601

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

We welcome the fact that the Local Plan seeks to maximise affordable housing and this accords with the recommendations in the Village Design Statement and our views on the development of the Bell Mead site.

Comment

Representation ID: 604

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Please note the reference to The Chelmsford Flood Alleviation Scheme in our response to the Sustainability Appraisal (see below).

[Extract from Parish Council SA response (see attached for more detail): The Parish Council objects to planning application 12/01320/FUL for the Chelsmford Flood Alleviation Scheme on the basis that:
- it would be inappropriate development in Green Belt,
- it would have a detrimental effect on landscape, and
- when filled to capacity there will be an area at increased risk of flooding, threatening wildlife, trees, ancient woodland and a Grade II listed bridge.]

Comment

Representation ID: 606

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Request the following sentence added to the end of this section "It will introduce a procedure to enable buildings of historical and architectural interest to be Locally Listed". Please also see our comments on DM20.

We believe that this is an important core policy and that there is an immediate need for a procedure to be introduced.

Comment

Representation ID: 608

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

The first part of the first sentence of the policy should be changed to read "The current Green belt boundaries across the Borough will be retained subject to etc".

We believe this is a more positive less woolly form of words than "general extent" and is still leaves open the opportunity to make minor changes.

Object

Representation ID: 610

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

We strongly believe that the first sentence should be rewritten to read "The new Local Plan provides an opportunity to consider Green belt boundaries and allows only minor alterations to be made when justified."

We consider "refresh" does not imply that due consideration is given to any changes and no mention is made of the need to justify changes.

Support

Representation ID: 612

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Re Attractive Shopfronts: We welcome the Plans' emphasis on attractive shop fronts. The control of this in conservation areas such as Ingatestone High Street is considered very important and should be particularly emphasised in the Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 613

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Re Delivery section (Target, Indicator, Delivery section below policy), specifically mention of pre-application advice: These should include consideration of the requirements of Village Design Statements and Conservation Area status if appropriate.

Support

Representation ID: 614

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

We very much welcome the fact that extension of a domestic cartilage into the Green Belt will not be permitted and that buildings in support of outside recreation will need to be justified.

Comment

Representation ID: 615

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

a. The first sentence refers to very special circumstances but these are not defined. We believe that the sentence should read "Proposals to extend dwellings within the Green Belt will not be permitted unless al the following criteria are met or very special circumstances are demonstrated". We think this is clearer and will avoid confusion.

criteria b- we are concerned that extensions of 30% to large properties could represent significant intrusion into the Green Belt and thereby affect its openness. Whilst we appreciate that criteria c. will give some protection we feel that some way of setting a maximum size should be seriously considered rather than a straight percentage figure which could give some properties too little and some far too much.

Support

Representation ID: 619

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

We support the need to replace a bungalow in the Green Belt with a bungalow as shown in criteria d. We would also like to see this principle extended to cover non Green Belt locations such as the residential envelope in Ingatestone. There is a shortage of bungalows in the central area of the village and consequently they are sought after and very expensive. The current Local Plan contains reference to this problem.