brentwood.gov.uk

Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. Blackmore Village Heritage Association (BVHA) has produced a 'neighbourhood plan' which should be referred to by the Planners. This clearly sets out our local housing needs for our already sustainable community.

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons: 1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram attached) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site. The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers. 2. Duty to Cooperate. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. 100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town/ village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities. 3. Red Rose Lane is a single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, Red Rose Lane, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. Red Rose Lane has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which adds more risk. 4. Flood Risk. The village centre of Blackmore sits in a dip and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable. At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area. The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase. (See photos showing the Blackmore Road area near Meadow Rise from summer 2016). This flood caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired. 5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52: Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen. Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy. 6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already stretched. * The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already. * The local primary school is already full- new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas. * Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings. * There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines. * The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable. 7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been. 8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included. 9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan. 10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land. 11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given. 12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed. 13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area. 14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit I growth corridor.