brentwood.gov.uk

I am a resident of the Village of Blackmore and object to the proposed Local Development Plan for the following reasons. The plan does little to resolve the boroughs long standing infrastructure problems especially in terms of addressing public transport links to the outlying rural communities. It also appears to have no consideration for the problems facing the outlying rural communities other than use them as sites for affordable housing, that cannot be guaranteed, other than to meet the quota for new housing. As a resident of Blackmore I am shocked that no mention of additional housing was made in the proposal from 2009 but find that in the new document the village has been earmarked as a proposed site for an additional 90 dwellings to be built in two fields on the periphery of the village. I would agree that some affordable housing is required in the village however this density of housing would be unsustainable, cannot be of benefit to the community, will add to the congestion already suffered by the village and will exasperate the chronic parking issues that already exist. I note from the consultation document that the Blackmore site Ref:076 which is earmarked for 40 additional dwellings notes that road access is poor and that the area suffers from surface water flooding. There is no mention of how these issues will be resolved. The flood and SuDs plans displayed at the community consultation event at Tipps Cross had no information for Blackmore which was left blank. Local Authority representatives at the event had little knowledge of the area and were vague when answering questions relating to Blackmore. Areas of hedging towards the top of Red Rose lane show a high mix of species indicating ancient hedgerow of high bio-diversity and a valuable wildlife corridor which will be lost if road widening and development takes place. The section of the proposed LDP, titled Managing Growth, lists in its strategies S03 - Support the sustainable growth of our existing larger villages to provide improved housing choice and protect services and facilities. S05 - Manage development growth to that capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure, services and facilities. In the case of development proposal in Blackmore neither of these statements can be supported as exiting infrastructure is insufficient for current needs. The proposed development is not sustainable growth but is increasing the village housing stock by 28.6%, putting additional pressure on existing services and facilities which have been reduced over recent years and cannot be accommodated by existing infrastructure which is already failing. Under the heading Sustainable Communities SO6 - Plan for housing that meets the needs of the Borough's population and contributes creating inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities. Again an increase in housing as proposed for Blackmore is not helping to create a sustainable community but is doing the opposite under current circumstances. Under the heading Spatial Strategy the proposed LDP states 48 - 49 Brentwood has a reasonably modest Gypsy and Traveller need requirement for the period 2016-2033 I would point out that Blackmore has a large illegal travellers site near the proposed development site which has put pressure on existing infrastructure and facilities especially the village school. This site has not been dealt with by the local authority and has been in existence for over 10 years. This fact has been ignore in the LDP document. 66 : The proposed housing allocations for the more sustainable villages are limited in size and scale but will at a local level provide a valuable role in enhancing the housing mix, introducing new affordable housing and help support local shops and services. As smaller greenfield sites they are likely to be attractive to smaller builders and have the possibility of being built out relatively quickly to support housing delivery within the early stages of the Plan being adopted. As with all current Green Belt sites, the Council is keen to ensure that edges of the sites are defendable and the revised village envelopes will be retained for the lifespan of the local plan and beyond. There is no evidence that the statement above will be met by the proposed development. The loss of amenities, poor public transport links and bad planning development decisions within the village boundary have seen Blackmore develop the characteristics of a dormitory village. Adding an additional 90 houses in two fields on the village boundary is not small scale development especially when considering maximum housing density. I also do not believe that affordable housing can be guaranteed under the current NPPF and development regulations especially as the NPPF is under review and will most likely favour housing development. Under the current system developers can state a lack of viability for building affordable housing, providing SuDs and improving infrastructure. I would also suggest that other development in the future is a possibility extending the village edge if the current government develops its ideas on house building. The document states that Blackmore Village Primary School has capacity for more children but does not show how many children from the village cannot go to their local school as places are taken by children from outside the village. As an ex-governor of the school I'm astonished that this argument has even been made. Under the heading Transport and Movement SO21 : Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections. SO22 : Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors. SO23 : Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including electric vehicles charging points and other measures. No solid evidence in the document is presented into how the existing village infrastructure can be improved. In terms of public transport links the bus service in recent years has been reduced and a previous service provider stopped running buses as it was considered unprofitable due to Blackmores subsidised elderly and school aged population. The village is reliant on the car hence the villages current parking and congestion issues. I would also state that the bridge leading from Chelmsford Road has been weakened by heavy vehicle traffic. You also only have to visit Blackmore at weekends to know it is a popular hub for the South Easts cyclist and the roads are congested with parked cars and clogged by the cyclists riding in large groups sometimes 5 to 6 abreast. Much is made in the planning system of enhancing existing character, ensuring tranquillity in rural areas and in the LDP document of the need to facilitate and support stronger and vibrant town and village centres. How will this be applicable to Blackmore where the village centre is in a conservation area. Surely development and additional works traffic can only be detrimental to the fragility of this space. The village infrastructure which has had little investment in my XX years living in Blackmore is already insufficient, we have poor public transport, continuous flooding on the Chelmsford Road and in Red Rose Lane next to the proposed development site. The village suffers from regular power cuts, roads and public walkways are often in a state of disrepair and there are regular questions about sewage capacity. To add another 90 homes with the possibility of 200 additional vehicles shows a distinct ignorance of the problems facing our rural communities. It is also fair to point out the degrading of amenities in the village such as the loss of library services, a dedicated post office and reduced transport services have reduced the character and community cohesion of the village having an especially detrimental effect on elderly residents. This is far from the vibrant and sustainable picture painted in the LDP document which does little to address the issue. It is also worth pointing out that a new development of semi-detached housing was recently built in Nine Ashes, there is also an ongoing development at the site of the Norton Heath Equestrian Centre both of which add to existing infrastructure issues. Bad planning decisions within the village itself have allowed large sites previously occupied by single bungalows to be developed as large individual houses rather than encouraging the building of smaller dwellings. This has not only reduced the housing stock in the village but has also reduced the number of dwellings available for elderly residents that the building of affordable housing is supposedly trying to resolve. Although the plan states it guarantees the building of affordable housing for the village of Blackmore due to government policy there is no guarantee that affordable housing will actually be built. Due to the way developers use viability assessments and the poor use of available land in terms of housing density and vehicular parking I do not believe that any guarantee can be made that affordable homes and a workable SuDs system will be provided on the proposed sites. Generally I feel the proposed LDP process started as being well intentioned and agree that there is an obvious need for affordable housing. Unfortunately the current proposals appear to attempt to burden the outlying rural villages with large increases in housing showing a lack of research into current community needs, existing infrastructure, flood risk and sustainable capacity. The number of proposed houses is, I believe unsustainable and without guarantee and appears to be a desperate attempt to meet housing quotas for political expediency.