Housing needs survey to be undertaken, build on Brownfield sites first, build types of houses needed in Blackmore. I support the BVH mission.

Refer to attached form.

Build on brownfield sites first and conduct a housing survey. Build the types of houses which are needed by the people of Blackmore. The reasons are self explanatory. I support the BHVA.

Object to the plan - refer to attached form

1. I would like the proposed sites R25 and R26 removed from local development plan. 2. Consult the BVHA neighbourhood plan for sustainable development. 3. Why doesn't Brentwood Council lead the way to protect green belt and historical heritage sites - Blackmore at the top of the list. 4. Green alternative use to those sites eg allotments, solar panels on both to serve the village.

1. Building on greenbelt; 2. Infrastructure of school, surgery, parking, drainage; 3. Lack of consultation re local needs; 4. Local wildlife habitat leading to more flooding because of habitat removal; 5. Impact from top of Fingrith Hall Lane!!! Epping Borough. 6. More traffic pollution, risk of road accidents increases could lead to injury and deaths; 7. Local shop couldn't cope with the extra load; 8. Village will end up being part of London sprawl; 9. The profound historical nature and heritage will be deeply impacts; 10. Blackmore be a 'through' way / short cut from Red Rose at top of Fingrith Hall Road.

blank comment box

Sites R25 and R26 need to be removed from the LDP.

No clear strategy for Blackmore in north of BBC. Lack of consultation with nearby authorities (i.e. Epping FDC) - north part of Fingrith Hall Lane houses being built. Infrastructure - our modest services are already over stretched - school is full doctors appointments are hard to get. Traffic and parking - this will increase massively in the village will be dangerous. There are more suitable sites on and around Brentwood - i.e. old Toomey site on Ingrave Road has been empty for absolutely years as have many others in BBC Ongar Road former commercial park in town centre. No housing needs survey conducted to show why Blackmore is in the LDP. Access in/out Red Rose Lane unsuitable for volume of traffic the developments will produce accidents will happen. Proposed sites doe flood - building on these will increase flood risk elsewhere in village

Take Blackmore out of the LDP as it was in a previous draft.

Blackmore is a small village with limited facilities. It has one shop transport links are very poor with the bus service very limited indeed cancelled at one time and has traffic problems.
The imposition of 70 houses is grossly excessive and also totally disproportional to the total required.
The infra structure is incapable of sustaining these new properties.
There is no strategy for villages and no housing needs survey has been done by the council.
In addition the plan uses greenbelt land despite the fact that brownfield sites are available.
The area is liable to flood and further building would only worsen this.
Lastly some natural habitat for the local wildlife would be lost.
Take Blackmore out of the LDP as it was in a previous draft. The infrastructure is plainly unable to cope with the addition of more houses as required in the LDP with the health centre and the school already at full capacity and the roads unable to cope with further traffic.
There are brownfield sites that are available that could be utilized rather than use greenfield ones.
BBC have not consulted with the other authorities in the area as to the effect their plans influence BBC's one.
Red Rose lane is clearly unsuitable for the additional traffic that would occur if the plan was implemented.

Greenbelt should not be built on. I agree with the Blackmore Village Heritage Association.

Living on Red Rose Lane I see continuous stream of dog walkers, joggers, hikers, cyclists and horse riders all enjoying a country village lane. It is narrow and winding, cars have to slow down to pass. There are ditches on either side and no footpaths. The exit onto Nine Ashes Road often floods and is a particularly junction, right by the school. An increase in traffic would be a great risk. Blackmore is a very small village and despite being very isolated has a minimal bus service. There is one shop a full school that is already over stretched and a doctor surgery that isn't cope now. The narrow roads are unsuitable for heavy traffic and already car parking problems. Blackmore village cannot possibly cope with the strem of the proposed developments on its infrastructure. I therefore consider the plan to be unsound. Why choose Blackmore greenbelt when there are other locations within Brentwood Borough Council more sustainable.

Housing needs survey should be completed, build on brownfield sites, build type of houses needed in Blackmore, I support the BVHA mission.

Refer to attached form

Refer to attached form

Conduct a meaningful local housing survey with residents and listen to and respond to the concerns and needs of local residents before any planning decisions are made, It is my opinion that after meaningful consultation with local residents and a large and appropriate reduction in proposed development, small scale sympathetic development would be welcomed and supported.

Refer to attached form

Housing needs survey should be undertaken, build on brownfield sites first, build the types of houses needed in Blackmore, I support the BVHA mission.

Refer to attached form

Take R25 and R26 OUT of the LDP and please consider BVHA consultation plan.

Sections 4, 8, 9 - R25 and R26.Unsound because: too much traffic in the village, Blackmore school is bursting plus morning traffic is increasing and dangerous, Flood risk, not enough parking in the village, doctors appointments already like gold dust, narrow lanes, risk for the cyclists and horse riders.
Take R25 and R26 OUT of the LDP and please consider BVHA consultation plan.

Remove plans for sites R25 and R26. Suggest the Planners refer to the BVH Neighbourhood Plan which illustrates the villages housing needs relevant to maintaining a sustainable community.

Epping Forest District Council was not consulted about the 30 homes being built at the top of Fringrith Hall Lane, hence no consideration was given to the impact this wil have on our village. No clear strategy has been outlined for Blackmore in the north of the borough. Our doctors surgery is oversubscribed - no more patients please!! The school is full, don't ruin it by overfilling the classrooms. Where would the excess water go? There's nowhere to park as it is! We love the wildlife here - please don't destroy their homes.

Site R25 and R26 need to be removed from the Local Development Plan. We need housing that fulfils a sustainable community as outlined in BVH Neighbouring Plan.

The village infrastructure is insufficient to deal with a significant increase in population in terms of oversubscribed school and doctor surgery. I totally disapprove of building on greenfield sites.

To sustain 70+ houses the road system with need to the upgrades and facilities (medical, schools and transport) will need to be in place before building commences.

There has been no adequate consultation with neighbouring authorities (Epping Forest and their development of 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane and the effect on Blackmore facilities. There has been no consultation on actual requirements for Blackmore and what services will be required) to service additional housing. It is currently almost impossible to get a doctors appoint, transport to and from Brentwood is a bar adware. The village is already congested without 70 more houses as the cars that will bring. The lone school is already full and no space to extend it.

In order to accommodate the 70 additional houses the current road system will need to be upgraded and in place. The current school provision is operating close to maximum and there is no room to expand the school. The local health centre is also under pressure and it can take up to 3 weeks to get a doctors appointment unless classed as an emergency.

There has been no consultation on the actual requirements for the village of Blackmore for example the services that will be required to meet the demand that the additional housing will bring. There has also been no consultation with neighbouring authorities, ie, Epping Forest and their allowed development of 30+ houses at the top of Fringirth Hall Lane and the effect these additional houses will have. The current social amenities, health education and transport one already over subscribed and therefore any additional housing will need these facilities upgraded prior to any building commence. This has not been identified in the proposed plan.

Sections 4,8, 9_ policies R25 and R26. Blackmore is an historic village renowned for its village feel and qualities. The reason it has remained jewel in Essex is because of the protected Green Belt land. The government encourage "brownfield" site to be built on and there are many more suitable site, which would not impact on this traditional English village, Access in these medieval country lanes is not suitable for the increase volume of cars, The school & doctors would be unable to cope with this large growth in the population, and this would have an impact of the villagers wellbeing.

Refer to attached form

Sites R25 and R26 should be remove from the plan. Planners should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs, for ur already sustainable community.

Sections R04, R08 (flood and Green Belt) and R09Blackmore Village doesn't have the infrastructure for houses in Red Rose Lane, The volume of traffic at present has already reached its limit. Also I understand that flooding could be a real possibility.
Sites R25 and R26 should be remove from the plan. Planners should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs, for our already sustainable community.

Please refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan.

Refer to attached form

I fully support the plan put forward by Blackmore Village Heritage Association.

Sections 04,
08 - Green Belt and Flooding
09 - R25 R26
There is no clear strategy for villages (Inc. Blackmore) in north of borough.
Principle of development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong. There are modest services and infrastructure in Blackmore (an isolated village). School is full, GP waiting times are over 4 weeks, parking in the centre of the village is already a nightmare.
BBC not demonstrated that the required housing could not be met on other (allocated) sites.
There has been no housing need survey to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP.
Access on/off Red Rose Lane is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic. Equally access via Woollard Way 'hammer heads' would be problematical.
Flooding in the village - proposed sites are liable to flood and therefore building on this land will also increase flood risk elsewhere in the village.
I fully support the plan put forward by Blackmore Village Heritage Association.

These have been set out in the BVHA neighbourhood plan and I refer to this document.

Please refer to attached form
Sections 04 Managing Growth
08 - Green Belt and Flooding
09 - R25 R26two fields off Red Rose Lane

There is no clear strategy for rural communities in borough. Blackmore has been stripped of public services.
No consideration of development already occurring around Blackmore, recent planning decisions in Blackmore to reduce the housing stock whilst 30 new homes on Fingrith Hall Lane with their impact on village. Neighbouring Councils not consulted.
Development is ill considered as village has reduced public services, poor infrastructure, inadequate transport links, oversubscribed school and GP, parking problems, all cant cope with existing community. Parking controls not enforced, roads often unpassable
Development will push village envelop out into surrounding agricultural land and set an endless precedent for developers.
This development, not mentioned in previous LDP drafts, does not demonstrate an example of sustainable development and more suitable sites appear to the available in Shenfield and Brentwood.
Brownfields sites do not appear to have ben investigated fully and should take precedent over green belt. The ancient hedgerow boundary to Red Rose Lane also appears not to have been considered. It has been cut back hard for the first time in decades.
Document doesn't demonstrate required housing density? For Brentwood cannot be included as part of the provision identified in other allocated sites in the borough.
Housing needs survey not been done, so why was Blackmore selected for development and how would housing type be decided?
Existing road infrastructure inadequate - congestion, parking, road sizes.
Proposed sites and access roads are liable to flood and more homes increase this risk. Red Rose Lane floods regularly as does access to the village around the pond.
Changes have been set out in the BVHA neighbourhood plan and I refer to this document.
Happy to be represented by the BVHA and Roger Keeble

I agree with BVHA neighbourhood plan and planners need to heed th Blackmore local housing requirements.

Sections 04, 08, 09 - policy R25 and R26Blackmore village cannot cope with any further demand on its infrastructure. Presently school is at its capacity and medical centre is also struggling with patients having to wait unacceptable time to get an appointment.
I agree with BVHA neighbourhood plan and planners need to heed th Blackmore local housing requirements.

Please refer to 'BVHA neighbourhood plan'.

Section 04; 08 - green belt flooding; 09 - R25 and R26
The strategy for rural villages like Blackmore isn't clear in the document, . Red Rose lane is unsuitable for an increase in traffic flow, due to the access onto/off of the road; the proposed sites are areas known for flooding and development will also increase flood risk elsewhere in Blackmore; the principle of the red rose lane development is wrong - Blackmore is an isolated village with limited infrastructure and poor public transport, which would struggle more.

I am writing to you to object to the density of housing Brentwood Council is proposing on the office site in Western Road which equates to something like 229 dwellings per Hectare, which is far the biggest of any of the proposed sites and can only possibly be achieved with high rise blocks of flats, which is inappropriate in a residential street of houses with a maximum height of two and a half stories. I understand that there other sites which also fall short of policy in the Local Development Plan to which I object. I quote from the Local Development Plan: "Efficient land use is essential in a borough like Brentwood where land is scarce and enables new homes to be provided without encroaching on the countryside. Good design makes it appropriate to develop in a way that is sympathetic to local character, uses land efficiently and creates or maintains a high-quality living and working environment The right density will depend on the scheme, dwelling mix, site characteristics and location. 6.19 Proposals for housing developments should promote an effective use of land in line with the NPPF. Policy HP03 Residential Density sets out the Council's expectations on the net density of sites in the borough, supporting development proposals that make efficient use of land and discouraging low density development to ensure optimal use of each site.
6.20 The Council considers it reasonable to expect proposals to achieve densities
of at least 35 dwellings per hectare except where this would harm the special
character of an area, have an adverse transport impact or cause harm to residential amenities. Densities of 65 dwellings to the hectare or more will generally be expected in locations well served by retail, commercial and community facilities and services, and/or locations with good public transport accessibility."

I should like to raise the following issues regarding the LDP. GREEN BELT - While it concerns me that it has proved necessary to utilize Green Belt, I admire the council for sticking to its guns regarding defensible boundaries in order to prevent urban sprawl. I am aware that it is a government diktat that Green Belt should be used to
accommodate the unprecedented housing need but wonder why the enormous
brownfield Clapgate scrapyard site, off Chivers Road in Stondon Massey, is not part of the equation. TRAFFIC CONCERNS - I believe that problems besetting the Clapgate scrapyard site include difficulties involving access. Yet to invest in providing this could help to solve the problems below. 1. Traffic from the large amount of houses destined for Pilgrims Hatch, with access to the Doddinghurst Road, will make the road even more congested at peak times and will result in "rat runs" along minor roads. 2 Traffic from those houses on the William Hunter Way site will put an ENORMOUS amount of pressure on Brentwood's congested unofficial ring road, comprising Western Avenue and Western Road. The junction with the latter and Weald Road is totally inadequate with traffic lights so close to the mini roundabout there. Already, the back up of traffic caused by having to give way to vehicles from the right, and the proximity of the traffic lights, can cause tailbacks stretching down to Western Road, past North Road. I can only imagine the impact of more traffic on the Ongar Road. 3. To build these houses will deprive the town of valuable car parking space and dissaude outsiders from visiting Brentwood. As if the shops didn't have enough problems this could well and truly put a nail in the coffin.
4. As a resident of Pilgrims Hatch, I can testify that the area has a good bus service but, as a widowed pensioner, I would not be able to shop in Brentwood without a car - I would not be able to carry heavy shopping bags to and from bus stops and on and off buses. I rely heavily on collect-by-car services. Yes, I could resort to on-line ordering but this would further adversely affect the life blood of the High Street
ETHICAL CONCERNS - There is a development of 48 units on Western Road, close to its junction with Weald Road, listed as part of the LDP. This development was earlier presented to me, by the council, as a planning application and I was invited to submit any objections I might have. They were: More traffic debouching on to an already congested Western Road (part of Brentwood's unofficial ring road) close to its inadequate junction with Weald Road (as described in No.2 above). The design of the building did not blend with the appearance of the Edwardian /Victorian buildings in what was originally a quiet, residential road but is now a busy thoroughfare. The plans showed that this block of appartments more resembled the
high-rise ugly 1960 structures which Brentwood has been working hard to eliminate
from its townscape. I heard no more officially but understand that, owing to the huge amount of objections, the planners were trying to resolve some problems with the developers who refused to give the council the necessary time in which to do this. They appear to have got round the problem by resorting to the site's listing in the LOP (it had been listed for the development of 22 dwellings in the first draft).
Although this might be a legal loophole, it appears unethical to me because I understand it will be subject to a different policy to that which affects a normal planning application. It suggests that the developer wants to avoid the more stringent measures involved in the latter such as the design of the building and the fact that, in such a restricted area, the only alternative would be to build upwards which would totally conflict with the entire tenor of other homes in the road. CONCLUSION - All these problems appear to have arisen because the Government is demanding too much from such a small town. There is neither the capacity nor infra-structure for further building in the centre and to build outside its confines threatens the Green Belt Despite the need for housing, it is my suspicion that the Government's main aim is to test the water for future expansion of Greater London into Essex. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has informed me that the Government has ordered local councils to use Green Belt for building whether there are brownfield sites available or not I wonder whether this could this be the reason why the Stondon Massey scrapyard has not been considered for development.

Remove Blackmore from this list of proposed sites

BBC has not shown alternative brownfield sites that are available-they should be used before Green belt land. The access would be impossible with that amount of traffic. We do not have the infrastructure to take this amount of development. We already have waiting lists for appointments to see local doctors. The parking is already a problem. Surely Epping Forest Council would have more sites available than a tiny village like Blackmore. We need to preserve our small village and green belt.

Site R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs as the Blackmore community is already sustainable.

The local schools are struggling to cope already. More houses will increase demand. The local GP services are also struggling to cope and more homes will place even more pressure on them. The current road infrastructure will not be sufficient for more traffic. Flooding is a risk factor in the area and building more houses will aggravate this.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan

Local Plan is unsound: Blackmore is a small village and development of this size on green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Fingrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore, i.e. doctor, shop, school. None of which can cope now. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would do in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted. Other villages excluded, as well as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chelmsford Road and Spriggs Lane that amount to 20 additional houses. Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for this traffic. It floods and is unpassable every time we have heavy rain. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussion with Epping Council, as they border on the village

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan.

Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for ths traffic. It floods and is unpassable every time we have rain. Blackmore is a small village and development of this size one green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Fingrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore, i.e. doctor, shop, school, none of which can cope now. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussion with Epping Council as they border on the village. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted and other villages excluded. As will as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chemlsford road and Spriggs Lane to amount to 20 additional houses.

Remove the proposed sites field 25 and 26 from local development plan. Consult local people they know how congested and dangerous the roads are winding and very narrow.

1. No trains, bus one an hour everyone must drive. In my col de sack each household has 3, 4, 5 cars. 2. The roads are very narrow and dangerous every month at least one car (a Tesco delivery lorry last week) turned upside down in ditch. 3. Cannot get appointment with doctor surgery. 4. Roads too dangerous for children to cycle. 5. Plenty of space nearer to Brentwood.