brentwood.gov.uk

Object

Representation ID: 30504

Received: 04/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Foreman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Both sites are located in a critical drainage area, there is
significant water run of and frequent flooding from the River Wid. The increase in housing numbers from around 50 to around 70 means that with the greater the number the more the risk factors increase: flooding, drainage capacity, infrastructure issues (roads, schools, health services). Brentwood Borough Council understood this, hence the Focussed Consultation of November 2019. The NPPF guidelines should be forced to retrofit a flawed strategy in a historic, unique, remote, rural village,
Category 3 Settlement - there is no parade of shops, there is no travel agency.
There is one small Co-Op store for day-to-day needs, together with a hairdressers, two pubs, and a teashop (What village in England does not have a tea shop or a
pub).
MM116 Appendix 2
SO2 Sustainable Means of Travel and Walkable Streets - 70 extra homes means more cars, more journeys, more congestion in the village centre and more pollution. Many of the lanes in Blackmore are not safely "walkable" as they are too narrow with no pavements.
SO3 - Deliver Sustainable Communities - building extra homes will not create any employment opportunities, support the rural economy or enhance community facilities. However, other "zombie" villages nearby do need this regeneration.
Strategic thought needs to be given to the sustainability of villages in the north of the Borough. In Policy MG06 it is stated that a Housing Needs Assessment needs to be
undertaken before the next LDP is constructed in the short term, begs the question "why is this not done first" before Blackmore is selected.
With regard to other reference points in the MM paper.
Page 3 - promoting sustainable mobility - this cannot be ticked by building in Blackmore
Page 4 creating environmental net gain - building on Green Belt in Blackmore will destroy the significant wildlife that current inhabits the R25 and R26 green fields.
Page 54/56 promoting improved choices in modes of transport - this underlines the paradox of Brentwood Borough Council's strategy versus its developer led decision to promote building in Blackmore.
Sustainability Appraisal September 2021
Page 5 - community and wellbeing - the comments in this paragraph underline that Brentwood Borough Council has zero understanding of the community that has been
created by villagers of Blackmore over the decades, and it is appalling that and not acceptable that BBC think that concerns are not significant. The work done with
Stonebond on a brownfield site in Blackmore shows that we are not just "Nimbys".
Page 8 Reasonable Alternatives - in July 2018 Redrose Farm was presented as a reasonable alternative a brownfield site, which was subsequently ignored and then
used as a "windfall" site, and pressed ahead with developer led destruction of the Green Belt.
Page 9 - Omission Sites - Honeypot Lane (a long-standing "included" site) was voted out of the LDP due to site access issues and being on Green Belt and Blackmore was voted in , despite even more difficult access issues and being Green Belt - where is the consistency and strategy.
In a village of c.350 dwellings to add c.70 (an c.20% increase) it is quite clear that the decision to build in Blackmore is developer led and opportunistic and does not "tick the boxes in Brentwood Borough Council's own limited strategic thinking.
In conclusion, it would appear that the decision to use Green Belt in Blackmore is developer led and the only consideration being given to the amount of profitability
there is to be made. No consideration, has been given to the concerns of the residents or the findings of professionals concerning drainage, flooding, etc.