brentwood.gov.uk

Object

Representation ID: 30571

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Deletion of (b), the 'minimum 25% reserved for locals etc' clause, is pretty obvious.
- However, what did not come to light in the Hearings, is why this clause is there in the first place. As it certainly did not come from village demand in fact it was deemed ridiculous by BVHA when promoted and voted on at the ECM in November 2018.
- No it was introduced to stifle proper debate, ad as BBCs own Barrister put it on 01.02.21 it was embarrasing.
- Again MM1 and MM2 - The 50's have been ignored.
- The above is the true context behind these sites (previously omission sites) suddenly and unexpectedly being included at Reg 18 and it is something that needs to go on record. It has nothing to do with strategic thinking. In fact it is the polar opposite of a proper strategy.
- Access to R26 and R26. Redrose Lane is wholly inadequate for this purpose, narrow, single track lane, no pavements, frequent flooding and a danger to wildlife and humans (walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc). It might not have received protected land status (Sustainability Appraisal refers), but Redrose Lane is inadequate for existing vehicle usage (including lorry restrictions) and certainly should not be threatened with an additional 700 (plus?) vehicle movements per day.
- It is not a defendable boundary look at the number of houses already to the north of Redrose Lane.
- Orchard Piece as an alternative access road (R26): Presumably that has been added in because the above comments have been taken on board but Orchard Piece is a quiet, residential, cul­-de-sac. Again totally unfit for purpose as a new access route.
- Proposed changes to site allocations (back up to around 70 from around 60): the Sustainability Appraisal comments on page 5, 'Community and Wellbeing' is a massive understatement and further evidence of the
lack of understanding of our community. A 20% increase in total dwellings (on top of all the other well documented development going on around Blackmore including EFDC) is not sustainable: (354 + 70 +EFDC housing, plus, plus). In fact, it will destroy the sustainable community that has been built over many decades and it will have a serious detrimental impact on lives, resources, infrastructure etc etc. MM1 and MM2 rules should apply.