Comment

Representation ID: 15987

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

Mountnessing village values its status within the greenbelt and it is important that this is maintained whilst accepting the need for housing growth in the locality. Any further convergence with Shenfield and Ingatestone should be avoided There is close proximity to Brentwood although for many services e.g. doctors, shops, and telephone exchange the village taps into the resources in Ingatestone. Historically the size of the village was not of sufficient critical mass to warrant certain provision. However, with proposals within the LDP and other plans currently in hand to build estates of houses within the Parish boundaries this status needs proper review.

Comment

Representation ID: 15988

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

In total, if all developments suggested (including those recently given outline permissions) go ahead then the Parish size will increase substantially, perhaps by as much as 50% or more. MPC consider that before embarking on further developments an infrastructure review is needed to ensure that services (water, sewage, electricity, gas and communications) are fit for purpose. Furthermore, the Mountnessing primary school is currently near capacity and there is no doctor's surgery in the village.

Comment

Representation ID: 15989

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

It is acknowledged that much of the LDP developments proposed, although within the MPC boundaries, fall on the Ingatestone side of the A12 and will impact Ingatestone probably more than Mountnesssing. Nevertheless there will be knock on to other Mountnessing residents through the additional pressure on Ingatestone facilities. It is noted that the LDP does not take much account of the circa 170 properties planned between Thoby Prior and the Old Scrapyard site which are clearly within Mountnessing.

Comment

Representation ID: 15990

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

MPC are keen that planners ensure that developments put forward provide a range of housing types as there is a dearth of smaller affordable properties which will allow local first time buyers or older residents to continue to inhabit the village. The ability to be residentially mobile within the village is contributory to retaining a community 'feel' and identity. Another contributor to this sense is the ability for locals to be employed where they live. Most developments planned seem to be on former commercially used land thereby reducing opportunities. The temptation to allow developers to build high density estates should also be avoided .

Comment

Representation ID: 15991

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

Other local considerations include traffic and parking. The B1002 (Roman Road) is a key relief route for the A12 with traffic levels also up whenever rail work takes place on the East Anglia line. Parking facility is generally inadequate within the village and this coupled with the heavy traffic has been contributory to many collisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 15992

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

Overall, the key message from Parish Council is the need to view the totality of current and future proposals (as many as 250 additional properties added to an existing housing stock of around 500) and to locally review infrastructure provision. The overlap to Ingatestone probably warrants that this be done jointly. It is important that Brentwood BC recognise the relative impact of cumulative community expansions and look at these holistically rather than individually as they arise.