brentwood.gov.uk

Object

Representation ID: 30511

Received: 04/12/2021

Respondent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association

Agent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Deletion of (b), the ridiculous 'minimum 25% reserved for locals etc' clause, was inevitable to all bar the Councillors who voted in favour of it.
- What did not become clear during the Hearings, in spite of the very good questions posed by Mrs Wright, is how this clause came to be there in the first place. It certainly did not come from anything akin to a 'Village housing
need', it was simply proposed as a means of stifling any proper debate about the late inclusion of R25 and R26 into the Plan, at the ECM in November 2018. As BBC's own Barrister summed it up nicely at the Hearing on 03.02.2021, it was 'embarrassing'.
- This is mentioned, as it is about time the true context as to why these (previously long-standing omission) sites suddenly and unexpectedly became 'included'....and at the same time other previously 'included' sites became 'omission' sites, and could not therefore be discussed at the Hearings. Where is / was the strategic thinking?
- Access to R26 and R26. Various issues to flag up, including: Redrose Lane is wholly inadequate for this purpose, and ECC Highways need to look into this matter again. It is a narrow, single track lane, with no pavements and no accessible grass verge. Quite apart from the frequent flooding, there is a real danger to walkers; cyclists; horse-riders; and wildlife, that frequent the lanes. Red rose Lane is inadequate for existing vehicle users, including lorry access restrictions, let alone what will happen if another (around) 70 houses are built.
- Orchard Piece as an alternative access road (R26): Presumably that has been added due to the realisation of the flooding and other drawbacks identified along Redrose Lane? Orchard Piece is a quiet, residential, cul­
de-sac, and will be totally unsuitable for an additional several hundred traffic movements per day, especially given the number of young children who live and play in the Close.
- 'A defendable Boundary'? Not really, in fact there are already around 100 houses and mobile homes to the north of this Lane, plus the (currently illegal) Travellers' camp.
- Proposed changes to site allocations (back up to around 70 from around 60): the Sustainability Appraisal comments on page 5, 'Community and Wellbeing' are a massive understatement and further evidence of the
lack of knowledge and understanding of our community. There are currently 354 homes in Blackmore, add 70 equals a 20% increase, plus all the housing that EFDC has had built on the Village borders. It comes back to the points raised earlier about Village resources and infrastructure - it is not sustainable development. In fact, it would destroy the sustainable community that already exists, and which has been built over many decades. It would have a serious detrimental impact on: lives; resources; infrastructure etc. MM1 and MM2 'rules' need to be applied here.