Consultation is required with neighboring authorities and the local community. An assessment of local need for housing is required. A survey of traffic impact on the surrounding area is required. There is already a development of 30 houses just outside the village that will impact the traffic flow. Detailed flood risk analysis required. Assess possibility of smaller scale brownfield developments within the area to cater for local need if any is proven. Larger developments like this should be placed nearer the transport hubs (Brentwood, Dunton, etc.)and nearer to possible employment opportunities. Develop a strategic approach to the Villages north of Brentwood by consultation.

The LDP is unsound as it does not meet the test of Soundness as detailed on your form. There is no proven local need nor accessibility to local services. The local community has not been consulted on the LDP. A survey by a local group has been completely ignored by the Council. The Green Belt should be protected and although other sites that were looked at in the Allocation have been 'discounted for Green Belt impact' this appears to have been ignored in Blackmore. There is a need to minimize travel under the NPPF. Building 70 houses in a small rural village miles from train stations and other transport hubs is not compliant. The local flooding in the recent past has been ignored. There is a need to 'Conserve historic environment'. The centre of the village is a conservation area. R25 and R26 have two Grade 2 listed buildings on the boundary of the development. The character of Red Rose Lane an historic plague road around the village will be completely destroyed by the development

Site R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and Planners should refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs, for our already sustainable community. Should not build on green belt land. Backing the BVHA.

Blackmore is one of the few remaining small historical villages. It would be a terrible thing to lose such an attraction. Its wonderful church, village green and lovely country roads. The infrastructure of such a small village can't support such a level of development therefore I consider the plan to be unsound.

Site R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and Planners should refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs, for our already sustainable community. Consideration has not been given to the BVHA Neighbourhood plan. Also further review must take place regarding impacts and other developments in progress and brownfield opportunities.

The plan is not sound. Blackmore as a village does not have the resource or infrastructure to even support a development of this scale. The roads are far too narrow to allow access on such a huge scale and the limited resources of schools and streets will not be able to cope. It appears consideration has not been given to other alternative available to the council.

Consultation required with neighboring authorities this would show several developments that would impact on local services in Blackmore and cater for some local housing needs. Location needs to be re-assessed. There is no prove that Blackmore needs this number of houses being distant from transport links and there being little or no local employment. Detailed flood risk analysis required - to identify suitable locations out of flood risk areas. The historic lanes in and around Blackmore should be assessed to the established procedure and allocated "Protected Lane" status where they meet the necessary requirements. Assess possibility of smaller scale brownfield developments - support a policy of partnering owners of brownfield sites to develop local area needs where proven. Re-assess the development of sites around the transport hubs (Brentwood, Dunton, etc.) to cater for the Borough's housing needs and reduce the demands on the already stretched rural infrastructure to the north of Brentwood. Develop a strategic approach to the Villages north of Brentwood by consultation with the local community.

The Local Plan is not compliant on the following points: 1. NPPF Sect 2 8.a.b.c - to meet local need, accessible services -does not comply. 2. NPPF Sect 3 28 - the views of the local community have not been included in production of the plan. 3. NPPF Sect 5 77/78-decisions should be 'responsive to local circumstances' and 'reflect local needs'. There is no proven need for these houses. 4. NPPF Sect 9 103 - development should be location focused, limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of travel modes. This development of 70 houses will rely on private cars for transport being at least 7 miles from the nearest rail stations being accessed via local rural lanes. The limited bus services are not supportive of employment during normal working hours. 5. NPPF Sect 14 -area known locally to flood although no focused flood risk assessment has been carried out. History of flooding shows both Chelmsford Road and Redrose Lane become impassable during heavy rainfall. (In 2012 my own car was written off after ingesting flood water through the air intake system when proceeding along Redrose Lane. 6. NPPF Sect 15 17 4/175 - to protect and enhance biodiversity. NPPF 16 - Conserving the historic environment. R25 and R26 have two Grade 2 listed buildings on the boundary of the development. Redrose Lane being the point of access for both developments is signed by the Highways authority as "Not suitable for heavy goods vehicles". Red rose lane has historical significance as a bypass during the Black plague of 1348. This lane has been assessed by the local community by way of the procedure used in the Brentwood Borough Council Protected Lanes report [March 2016 (Draft)].

A fully evidenced survey of the suitability of these proposed sites is required taking into account the obligations of the local authority to protect green belt and the heritage assets in Blackmore village. Detailed flood risk analysis is required. Assess fully any available or new currently unknown brownfield sites in more suitable locations. Meaningful consultation with neighboring authorities namely Chelmsford to consider the suitability of unmet housing needs being covered with an agreement with other authorities. Evidence and develop a strategic approach for the north of the borough

I object to the inclusion of the sites on Green Belt land referenced Policy R25: Land North of Woollard Way, Blackmore and Policy R26: Land North of Orchard Piece, Blackmore into the Local Plan for the following reasons. Not Positively Prepared: 1. Failure to give an objective assessment of the development and infrastructure requirements. 2. Failure to address the impact on the village with a 27% increase in size has been underestimated in respect of impact on the lives of the occupants of the village and of other residents in close proximity to the development. 3. Failure to mitigate the effects of traffic emissions and mange climate risk by concentrating new developments in existing cities or large town and/or ensuring they are well served by public transport. 4. Failure to fully examine the redevelopment of the brownfield sites identified by the local authority on their Brownfield Land Register Part 1. Failure in their obligation to preserve Green Belt as laid out in the Sustainability Appraisal - 507 Safeguard the Green Belt and protect and enhance valuable landscapes and the natural historic environment. 5. Failure by the local planning authority to provide evidence of any assessment of local housing needs in Blackmore. No Justification: 1. Failure to fulfill its own Statement of Community Involvement that relates to the involvement and engagement of the community and stakeholders in the exercising of its planning functions I do not believe that the local authority has fully demonstrated a willingness to engage with and take note of the opinions of the local community. 2. Failure to evidence a local housing need in Blackmore supporting its inclusion in the Local Plan. Not Effective: 1. Failure as the plan does not provide suitable infrastructure for the proposed new homes and does nothing to make housing affordable for people on average or low incomes. Inconsistent with national policy: 1. Failure to comply with guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework in respect to the construction of new buildings being inappropriate on Green Belt. 2. Failure to conserve the historic environment R25 and R26 have two Grade 11 listed properties on the boundary of the development, Redrose Lane which is proposed as the access point to both development is not suitable as it is a country lane not designed to take large volumes of traffic and is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the exceptions as set out in government guidance apply to the sites under consideration in Blackmore 4. Failure to demonstrate a full examination of alternatives on brownfield land/sites prior to the proposal to consider the developments on Land to the North of Woollard Way and Orchard Piece. 5. Failure to comply with the NPPF by setting out strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape. 6. Failure to present a 'positive strategy' for the 'conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment', including those heritage assets that are most at risk. Assets should be recognised as being an 'irreplaceable resource' that should be conserved in a 'manner appropriate to their significance', taking account of 'the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits' that conservation can bring, whilst also recognising the positive contribution new development can make to local character and distinctiveness

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. The BVHA Neighbourhood Plan should be referred to, which sets out local needs for housing.

The local plan is unsound for Blackmore. It is an isolated village with limited infrastructure. Public services are minimal, including a poor bus service, a primary school which is already at capacity and a doctor surgery which is already overstretched. #there has been no survey with the community to explain Blackmore should be included in the LDP. BBC should be consulting with other local authorities to increase development on already allocated brownfield sites, where a far better infrastructure is already in place, including roads and public services. This would home a far lesser impact on the surrounding environment than building on greenbelt lane, which should be considered as the last resort for development. Development of Red Rose Lane and Fingrith Hall Lane would have a devastating effect to the local environment of Blackmore. The roads are not suitable for an increase in traffic which this development would bring. Both sites are liable to flooding, which would increase the risk of surrounding rea also.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. The planners should refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs for our already sustainable community.

Plan is unsound as no clear strategy for villages, inc. Blackmore, in the north of the borough. Sever impact on Blackmore of construction of dwelling as village cannot support services, i.e. school, doctors, bus service, etc. No 'housing needs survey' to show why Blackmore is included in LDP.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. The planners should refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs for our already sustainable community.

Plan is unsound as no clear strategy for villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the borough. Sever impact on Blackmore of construction of dwelling as village cannot support services, i.e. school, doctors, bus service, etc. No 'housing needs survey' to show why Blackmore is included in LDP.