The following are the comments from Mountnessing Parish Council (MPC) regarding the Local Development Plan consultation. It is accepted that new housing development within the Borough is essential, however, MPC have significant concerns at the scale of activity envisaged both in the town centre and within the close environs of Mountnessing. The LDP document is unclear in how it treats Mountnessing as the numbers of houses quoted (Page 35) is well short of the Council Tax number (359 for the draft LDP vs c500 for Tax purposes). It is also not clear on what the definitions are of the Village, reference has been made of the Village Centre but from a Parish boundary perspective, half of the geographic area lies to the east of the A12 with the other half being to the West of the trunk road, where about two thirds of the houses are. This geographic issue then leads to the perspective that the LDP draft refers to houses being built in Ingatestone at sites 128 and 106 (total proposed 161), although they are firmly within the MPC boundary. To clarify, most traffic accessing these sites from Brentwood or the East bound A12 will pass through the centre of Mountnessing each day. Further omission is made when considering development being completed at the Weston Homes Elms site where the first of 91 completions started as far back as last May (2017) and yet this is not mentioned. The Thoby Priory site is also moving forward (section 106 agreement about to be signed) and will generate a further 87 houses within the short term. Altogether, this means that 178 houses within the Parish boundary are not accounted for against the Village (Page 35). It is unclear why the statistics quoted are only made up to April 2017, ie 9 months out of date. So in summary, although 339 houses are either being built, close to starting or planned for the future within Mountnessing Parish there is no impact according to the statistics on P35 (2016 vs 2033). It is assumed (clarification not having been provided) that the LDP draft does not use administrative/parish boundaries; but using undefined boundaries makes it hard to get a clear picture of the impacts at local levels and could even imply to some residents that there is nothing happening in their locality, if the statistics were to be quoted out of context (eg in the press)! A sensible improvement to the document would be to include tabulations which coincide with Borough and Parish boundaries. In terms of the new development the striking thing is the scale of development proposed on the corridor between Shenfield and the A12 and outwards through Mountnessing Parish (sites 128/106) and towards Ingatestone. The coalescence between Brentwood, Shenfield, Mountnessing and Ingatestone will be very damaging to the rural aspect on leaving Brentwood heading north. The loss of Green Belt is irretrievable. The sheer volume of construction and occupation will also be hard to accommodate from a traffic perspective on roads that are already painfully slow in morning and evening rush hours - especially when they are the only option when the A12 blocks. The advantage of rail travel to London is highlighted but not how the new houses could be served with local bus routes when station car parks are already at full capacity. The current retail centre in Ingatestone is not well suited for its current use because of its cramped roads and lack of parking and promoting it to absorb the impact of the sizeable new developments proposed in Mountnessing is not going to improve matters. It is also noted that much of the town centre building is on car parks and this will create yet more traffic/parking pressure within the centre of Brentwood, Local residents constantly raise concerns (which are valid) of infrastructure pressures (health, education, services etc). A holistic approach should be central to this, with all local bodies being co ordinated to produce the best results for residents old and new. MPC are aware that (in particular) additional education and health facilities are determined by growth forecasts. However, within the scale of proposed development in the Borough the existing executive structures would seem to need to be substantially augmented to maintain proper control over the building works planned and to ensure that the infrastructure issues are managed effectively. The process to get the LDP to this stage and the issues mentioned above do not inspire confidence that the necessary management control from the executive and councillors will be applied. Something commercial builders will exploit fully. In conclusion, MPC consider that the impact on the Village (both its centre and within its boundaries) and in the immediately adjacent areas will be very significant for residents as the A12 corridor develops - yet this hardly gets any consideration in the plan. Overall for the whole Borough, it is a worry that the plan has taken so long to produce, and, looking forward, it is a greater worry how the massive (relative to recent past) scale of the developments proposed will be managed to avoid the local identity being lost and a degradation of amenity and infrastructure, especially in the short term.

The following are the comments from Mountnessing Parish Council (MPC) regarding the Local Development Plan consultation. It is accepted that new housing development within the Borough is essential, however, MPC have significant concerns at the scale of activity envisaged both in the town centre and within the close environs of Mountnessing. The LDP document is unclear in how it treats Mountnessing as the numbers of houses quoted (Page 35) is well short of the Council Tax number (359 for the draft LDP vs c500 for Tax purposes). It is also not clear on what the definitions are of the Village, reference has been made of the Village Centre but from a Parish boundary perspective, half of the geographic area lies to the east of the A12 with the other half being to the West of the trunk road, where about two thirds of the houses are. This geographic issue then leads to the perspective that the LDP draft refers to houses being built in Ingatestone at sites 128 and 106 (total proposed 161), although they are firmly within the MPC boundary. To clarify, most traffic accessing these sites from Brentwood or the East bound A12 will pass through the centre of Mountnessing each day. Further omission is made when considering development being completed at the Weston Homes Elms site where the first of 91 completions started as far back as last May (2017) and yet this is not mentioned. The Thoby Priory site is also moving forward (section 106 agreement about to be signed) and will generate a further 87 houses within the short term. Altogether, this means that 178 houses within the Parish boundary are not accounted for against the Village (Page 35). It is unclear why the statistics quoted are only made up to April 2017, ie 9 months out of date. So in summary, although 339 houses are either being built, close to starting or planned for the future within Mountnessing Parish there is no impact according to the statistics on P35 (2016 vs 2033). It is assumed (clarification not having been provided) that the LDP draft does not use administrative/parish boundaries; but using undefined boundaries makes it hard to get a clear picture of the impacts at local levels and could even imply to some residents that there is nothing happening in their locality, if the statistics were to be quoted out of context (eg in the press)! A sensible improvement to the document would be to include tabulations which coincide with Borough and Parish boundaries. In terms of the new development the striking thing is the scale of development proposed on the corridor between Shenfield and the A12 and outwards through Mountnessing Parish (sites 128/106) and towards Ingatestone. The coalescence between Brentwood, Shenfield, Mountnessing and Ingatestone will be very damaging to the rural aspect on leaving Brentwood heading north. The loss of Green Belt is irretrievable. The sheer volume of construction and occupation will also be hard to accommodate from a traffic perspective on roads that are already painfully slow in morning and evening rush hours - especially when they are the only option when the A12 blocks. The advantage of rail travel to London is highlighted but not how the new houses could be served with local bus routes when station car parks are already at full capacity. The current retail centre in Ingatestone is not well suited for its current use because of its cramped roads and lack of parking and promoting it to absorb the impact of the sizeable new developments proposed in Mountnessing is not going to improve matters. It is also noted that much of the town centre building is on car parks and this will create yet more traffic/parking pressure within the centre of Brentwood, Local residents constantly raise concerns (which are valid) of infrastructure pressures (health, education, services etc). A holistic approach should be central to this, with all local bodies being co ordinated to produce the best results for residents old and new. MPC are aware that (in particular) additional education and health facilities are determined by growth forecasts. However, within the scale of proposed development in the Borough the existing executive structures would seem to need to be substantially augmented to maintain proper control over the building works planned and to ensure that the infrastructure issues are managed effectively. The process to get the LDP to this stage and the issues mentioned above do not inspire confidence that the necessary management control from the executive and councillors will be applied. Something commercial builders will exploit fully. In conclusion, MPC consider that the impact on the Village (both its centre and within its boundaries) and in the immediately adjacent areas will be very significant for residents as the A12 corridor develops - yet this hardly gets any consideration in the plan. Overall for the whole Borough, it is a worry that the plan has taken so long to produce, and, looking forward, it is a greater worry how the massive (relative to recent past) scale of the developments proposed will be managed to avoid the local identity being lost and a degradation of amenity and infrastructure, especially in the short term.