Planners should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan, which was propery compoased and states what the village and villagers need. Far too many of what might have been thought of as affordable, have been extended, modified to the maximum and are no longer affordable. There are very few properties left in Blackmore of a smaller, single storey bungalow type. The sites R25 and R26 should be taken out of the LDP for the reasons give.

Refer to scanned form for detail.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. In accordance with local needs smaller homes could be allowed which would give existing residents the chance to down size releasing their larger homes.

Refer to the attached scanned form

Question 5 - bullets 1-3 * Due to the significant issues surrounding the acceptance of Reg 18 by BBC I think it would be necessary to independently reconsider the entire process to ensure that it was handled appropriately, and if not, repeat the process correctly before proceeding to Reg 19. Other bullets * New officials who understand the local issues and can make their voices heard with independence, in an environment that is willing to listen would be a prerequisite to getting any issues of this magnitude considered in a fair and democratic fashion. * Removing Blackmore from the List of Sites as previously promised or allocating the 70 houses to Dunton Hills, as already done for other sites.

General Comment relating to my response overall: My opinions are based primarily on my detailed knowledge of my local area of the LDP. This indicates it is Unsound and has not complied with the duty to cooperate. If it is flawed in one area, across this many criteria, it will in all probability suffer from the same flaws throughout when subjected to appropriate scrutiny. 1) The LDP has changed from original plan to that considered at Reg 18, with no explanation of why some sites have been included after initially being promised they will be excluded eg Blackmore and some eminently suitable sites have disappeared eg Honeypot Lane. 2) The late changes to the plan curtailed the amount of time available to appropriately consider and challenge it. 3) When Reg 18 was debated in the BBC chamber, some items were included without any prior warning or debate eg Formal inclusion of Traveler Site Status in Chelmsford Road, and some major concerns and proposals were totally and deliberately avoided eg using a guillotine motion to stop any Blackmore concerns being raised. 4) The original LDP was full of reference to quality of life, maintaining sustainable communities, improving residents' existence via the LDP, and working for the people was a recurring theme. This have disappeared from the latest version and it is now about meeting the target number of dwellings to be built to meet government quotas, and wanting residents input in a fashion that requires specialist knowledge. 5) The way that this form and the background information has been constructed is so complex and confusing for anyone not a professional planner, it has stopped a large number of ordinary residents from responding even though they have major issues. Some have even suggested that BBC did this deliberately to avoid too many people voicing their concerns. 6) Apart from at Dunton Hills there has been no creation of a coordinated strategy for any of the medium sized sites, nor for multiple linked sites that, when considered together, require a strategy. 7) There has been insufficient, if any, coordination with neighboring Councils and this leads to developments agreed by one council adversely affecting communities in another councils area. Eg Epping Forest & Brentwood. 8) There has been no evidence of Private developments (not included in the LDP) being considered to ensure the aggregation of LDP, Other Council Developments, and Private developments do not combine to cause increased problems or overwhelm and swamp any thriving communities. 9) There is no evidence that any C.I.L. required from developers would be sufficient to do an adequate job of protecting the local community. Nor is there any requirement for such levy to be exclusively used for the benefit of the community impacted by the development. 10) There is no evidence of a Housing Needs Survey being completed for Blackmore. So there is no evidence that the proposed sites are required for the benefit of Blackmore nor that they will fulfil the needs of the local community. 11) There is no evidence of appropriate investigation into other brownfield sites that are available and should take precedence over the Green Belt Sites listed. 12) There is no evidence of proactive research by BBC into potential areas that would positively benefit the local communities if developed. Rather they have waited for developers to apply for site inclusion (presumably for sites that would provide the most profit). Indeed some viable and useful sites have been removed without comment eg Honeypot lane. 13) It is unsound to arbitrarily place disproportionate growth on one existing community which will cause it harm, leaving others with nothing at all when they would actually like some development to improve their sustainability. Eg Blackmore v Stondon Massey 14) Following removal of the Tipps Cross Sites from the proposed sites at the flawed Reg 18 meeting, the ONLY development anywhere apart from Main Towns or Village Service Centers is in Blackmore. It is unsound, unjustified, ineffective and flawed to propose a 30% increase in dwellings for any community. It is even more iniquitous when that growth would go beyond 50% if related developments were to be considered. (see 7 & 8 above). 15) No consideration has been given to Counties "Protected Lanes" & "Quiet Lanes" policies. It states "DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE PROTECTED LANES OF HISTORIC OR LANDSCAPE VALUE OR GIVE RISE TO A MATERIAL INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC USING THESE LANES AND ROADS WILL NOT BE PERMlmD". Red Rose Lane (previously known as Service Lane) was used by travelers to avoid the village center during the Black Death in 1349, and to carry the dead around the outside of the village. The other part of the bypass to the south is Wenlocks Lane and it is protected. 16) Blackmore plans refer to type of development and require allocations for local & affordable housing. Which is unachievable as: a) House prices would be out of reach of "affordable housing'' candidates, who would also be unable to commute safely due to non-existent public transport and an unviable road system. b) There was no survey to ascertain if there was any local requirement, and any need would be for bungalows or flats for village children (which would increase the number of cars & traffic movements and would not be affordable for 1st time buyers. c) The idea of a Residential Travel Pack is ludicrous. Nothing could promote "sustainable travel from a site that big on single carriageway lanes. 17) Blackmore sites fail dismally SPOl: Don 8 of the 11 requirements. 18) When questioned, BBC Planning Team have avoided providing any solutions by passing the buck to Developers. So far, no surveys have been undertaken to ascertain if a problem exists with the development proposed. This means that Reg 18 & Reg 19 could be passed with Issues but no solutions; Developers who may suddenly have catastrophic profit margin holes and be forced to pull out or seek to cram in more houses. This would force new sites and new developers to be required after the LDP were agreed. This seems unsound, unjustified, ineffective and flawed. 19) When questioned, BBC Planning Team break down their response to individual issues with individual sites and suggest that one issue would not cause any harm to the community. They have avoided responding to situations, or reconsidering, where a site has 8 different problems. Eg Blackmore: Lack of employment viability; Lack of transport links; lack of infrastructure; lack of medical facilities; lack of education facilities; Severe flooding problems; lack of roads to build the development and subsequently deal with the astronomical increase in traffic movement; loss of Green Belt and damage to natural habitats. When problems are this significant, a solution must be proposed before including in the Listed Sites. Failure to do this is unsound, unjustified, ineffective and flawed. 20) To cause an increase in traffic movements of up 2000 per day along exceptionally narrow lanes that would cause irreparable damage to the sustainability of an existing thriving community is unsound, ineffective and flawed. Total Failure of requirement for any scheme to be acceptable item 4.9. 21) Existing traffic is a problem for Blackmore pedestrians where there are no footpaths or streetlights. Major increases in traffic would be downright dangerous. 22) If SP03 is actually imposed, the Blackmore developments will fail the requirements on over half and will in fact have a negative Health Impact on the existing residents. This means the Council would be obliged to refuse the planning permission or levy a huge CIL on the developer which would make it non-viable due to total loss of profitability. 23) There are a huge number of reports and surveys already in existence that highlight the major risk to flooding that already exists in Blackmore. Developing in a known flood prone area is crazy and will also increase the risk of flooding to the existing community. 24) The LDP states 8.90 that Blackmore & others are excluded from the Green Belt. There is no evidence provided for the comment and I would challenge the veracity of it. In fact BBC have classified in the LDP 4.23 Blackmore & Hook End developments as "Green Belt Land - Larger Villages". I can see an advantage for BBC if it were true, as it would avoid them having to come up with tortuous reasons to breach the rules for building on Green Belt. In conversations and meetings with BBC & their planning team they have never challenged our assertions that they are wrong to build on Green Belt. 25} Policy NE13 A requires that Sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for the existing community and the new homes. The Blackmore sites provide no benefit for the existing community and in fact it would be a negative change. 26} BBC (with significant support from Local Communities) went to great lengths a couple of years ago to prove the illegal occupation of the site in Chelmsford Road should not be allowed and the perpetrators should be removed. Now with no warning one individual raised the idea of formalizing the acceptability of the site, linking it to the LDP and it was passed without discussion at the infamous "Guillotine Meeting"

Question 5 - bullets 1-3 * Due to the significant issues surrounding the acceptance of Reg 18 by BBC I think it would be necessary to independently reconsider the entire process to ensure that it was handled appropriately, and if not, repeat the process correctly before proceeding to Reg 19. Other bullets * New officials who understand the local issues and can make their voices heard with independence, in an environment that is willing to listen would be a prerequisite to getting any issues of this magnitude considered in a fair and democratic fashion. * Removing Blackmore from the List of Sites as previously promised or allocating the 70 houses to Dunton Hills, as already done for other sites.

General Comment relating to my response overall: My opinions are based primarily on my detailed knowledge of my local area of the LDP. This indicates it is Unsound and has not complied with the duty to cooperate. If it is flawed in one area, across this many criteria, it will in all probability suffer from the same flaws throughout when subjected to appropriate scrutiny. 1) The LDP has changed from original plan to that considered at Reg 18, with no explanation of why some sites have been included after initially being promised they will be excluded eg Blackmore and some eminently suitable sites have disappeared eg Honeypot Lane. 2) The late changes to the plan curtailed the amount of time available to appropriately consider and challenge it. 3) When Reg 18 was debated in the BBC chamber, some items were included without any prior warning or debate eg Formal inclusion of Traveler Site Status in Chelmsford Road, and some major concerns and proposals were totally and deliberately avoided eg using a guillotine motion to stop any Blackmore concerns being raised. 4) The original LDP was full of reference to quality of life, maintaining sustainable communities, improving residents' existence via the LDP, and working for the people was a recurring theme. This have disappeared from the latest version and it is now about meeting the target number of dwellings to be built to meet government quotas, and wanting residents input in a fashion that requires specialist knowledge. 5) The way that this form and the background information has been constructed is so complex and confusing for anyone not a professional planner, it has stopped a large number of ordinary residents from responding even though they have major issues. Some have even suggested that BBC did this deliberately to avoid too many people voicing their concerns. 6) Apart from at Dunton Hills there has been no creation of a coordinated strategy for any of the medium sized sites, nor for multiple linked sites that, when considered together, require a strategy. 7) There has been insufficient, if any, coordination with neighboring Councils and this leads to developments agreed by one council adversely affecting communities in another councils area. Eg Epping Forest & Brentwood. 8) There has been no evidence of Private developments (not included in the LDP) being considered to ensure the aggregation of LDP, Other Council Developments, and Private developments do not combine to cause increased problems or overwhelm and swamp any thriving communities. 9) There is no evidence that any C.I.L. required from developers would be sufficient to do an adequate job of protecting the local community. Nor is there any requirement for such levy to be exclusively used for the benefit of the community impacted by the development. 10) There is no evidence of a Housing Needs Survey being completed for Blackmore. So there is no evidence that the proposed sites are required for the benefit of Blackmore nor that they will fulfil the needs of the local community. 11) There is no evidence of appropriate investigation into other brownfield sites that are available and should take precedence over the Green Belt Sites listed. 12) There is no evidence of proactive research by BBC into potential areas that would positively benefit the local communities if developed. Rather they have waited for developers to apply for site inclusion (presumably for sites that would provide the most profit). Indeed some viable and useful sites have been removed without comment eg Honeypot lane. 13) It is unsound to arbitrarily place disproportionate growth on one existing community which will cause it harm, leaving others with nothing at all when they would actually like some development to improve their sustainability. Eg Blackmore v Stondon Massey 14) Following removal of the Tipps Cross Sites from the proposed sites at the flawed Reg 18 meeting, the ONLY development anywhere apart from Main Towns or Village Service Centers is in Blackmore. It is unsound, unjustified, ineffective and flawed to propose a 30% increase in dwellings for any community. It is even more iniquitous when that growth would go beyond 50% if related developments were to be considered. (see 7 & 8 above). 15) No consideration has been given to Counties "Protected Lanes" & "Quiet Lanes" policies. It states "DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS THAT WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PHYSICAL APPEARANCE OF THE PROTECTED LANES OF HISTORIC OR LANDSCAPE VALUE OR GIVE RISE TO A MATERIAL INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC USING THESE LANES AND ROADS WILL NOT BE PERMlmD". Red Rose Lane (previously known as Service Lane) was used by travelers to avoid the village center during the Black Death in 1349, and to carry the dead around the outside of the village. The other part of the bypass to the south is Wenlocks Lane and it is protected. 16) Blackmore plans refer to type of development and require allocations for local & affordable housing. Which is unachievable as: a) House prices would be out of reach of "affordable housing'' candidates, who would also be unable to commute safely due to non-existent public transport and an unviable road system. b) There was no survey to ascertain if there was any local requirement, and any need would be for bungalows or flats for village children (which would increase the number of cars & traffic movements and would not be affordable for 1st time buyers. c) The idea of a Residential Travel Pack is ludicrous. Nothing could promote "sustainable travel from a site that big on single carriageway lanes. 17) Blackmore sites fail dismally SPOl: Don 8 of the 11 requirements. 18) When questioned, BBC Planning Team have avoided providing any solutions by passing the buck to Developers. So far, no surveys have been undertaken to ascertain if a problem exists with the development proposed. This means that Reg 18 & Reg 19 could be passed with Issues but no solutions; Developers who may suddenly have catastrophic profit margin holes and be forced to pull out or seek to cram in more houses. This would force new sites and new developers to be required after the LDP were agreed. This seems unsound, unjustified, ineffective and flawed. 19) When questioned, BBC Planning Team break down their response to individual issues with individual sites and suggest that one issue would not cause any harm to the community. They have avoided responding to situations, or reconsidering, where a site has 8 different problems. Eg Blackmore: Lack of employment viability; Lack of transport links; lack of infrastructure; lack of medical facilities; lack of education facilities; Severe flooding problems; lack of roads to build the development and subsequently deal with the astronomical increase in traffic movement; loss of Green Belt and damage to natural habitats. When problems are this significant, a solution must be proposed before including in the Listed Sites. Failure to do this is unsound, unjustified, ineffective and flawed. 20) To cause an increase in traffic movements of up 2000 per day along exceptionally narrow lanes that would cause irreparable damage to the sustainability of an existing thriving community is unsound, ineffective and flawed. Total Failure of requirement for any scheme to be acceptable item 4.9. 21) Existing traffic is a problem for Blackmore pedestrians where there are no footpaths or streetlights. Major increases in traffic would be downright dangerous. 22) If SP03 is actually imposed, the Blackmore developments will fail the requirements on over half and will in fact have a negative Health Impact on the existing residents. This means the Council would be obliged to refuse the planning permission or levy a huge CIL on the developer which would make it non-viable due to total loss of profitability. 23) There are a huge number of reports and surveys already in existence that highlight the major risk to flooding that already exists in Blackmore. Developing in a known flood prone area is crazy and will also increase the risk of flooding to the existing community. 24) The LDP states 8.90 that Blackmore & others are excluded from the Green Belt. There is no evidence provided for the comment and I would challenge the veracity of it. In fact BBC have classified in the LDP 4.23 Blackmore & Hook End developments as "Green Belt Land - Larger Villages". I can see an advantage for BBC if it were true, as it would avoid them having to come up with tortuous reasons to breach the rules for building on Green Belt. In conversations and meetings with BBC & their planning team they have never challenged our assertions that they are wrong to build on Green Belt. 25} Policy NE13 A requires that Sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for the existing community and the new homes. The Blackmore sites provide no benefit for the existing community and in fact it would be a negative change. 26} BBC (with significant support from Local Communities) went to great lengths a couple of years ago to prove the illegal occupation of the site in Chelmsford Road should not be allowed and the perpetrators should be removed. Now with no warning one individual raised the idea of formalizing the acceptability of the site, linking it to the LDP and it was passed without discussion at the infamous "Guillotine Meeting"

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.

To remove Blackmore from this list of proposed sites

UNSOUND: The flooding of a few years ago has just been alleviated this would cause more problems in that area. Blackmore would be unable to cope with this amount of development. We already have waiting lists for appointments to see local doctors. The parking is already a problem.

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

Take R25 and R26 out of the plan and consider the alternatives.

Policy R25 and R26, Sections 4,8,9 of LDP
Concerns over schools in the area, ie more traffic in and round Blackmore, Doddinghurst and nearby villages. Also Dr's surgery seems difficult to get appointments now, without new housing in the area.
Take R25 and R26 out of the plan and consider the alternatives.

Due to issues I have made clear I believe it is the Council's duty to remove sites R25 and R26 from the LDP such that they do not overwhelm local amenities and services; such that they do not cause further flooding by removing crucial green spaces and such that they are not driving forward with plans that would adversely affect live in the surrounding areas. Blackmore if not an affordable area for young people trying to get on the 'property-ladder': so any attempt to provide affordable housing within that area is counter-intuitive.

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons: 1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. The population of Blackmore is listed as 829, but this doesn't make provision for the residents of Nine Ashes road nor does it cover the Travellers living illegally within the village bounds which Brentwood Council still refuse to take action on - nor the residents living on the Chelmsford road, wo all use local amenities. The total of the separate population figures do not add up to the totaI population figure either- by a margin of around 600 people. Assumptions have been made based on these figures, calling into question the validity of the proposals. 2. Duty to Cooperate. I would say that the development of the 30 huge houses by Epping District council very close to the boundary of Blackmore Parish means that the village amenities are already under pressure- and this has not been accounted for within any of the plans. 3. The single track road named "red Rose Lane" is not suitable for extra traffic without marked improvements to the road - including fixing pot holes and filling ditches on either side. It is also continually used by the public - on foot and on horseback - and is part of at least one major cycle route. There are no walkways so the extra traffic will increase the danger to road users. 4. Flood Risk. The village centre of Blackmore irrigation is almost non-existent- and actually in recent years the continual flooding has actually washed away pavements and seeped into low-lying houses on Church Street. Some of these pavements have yet to be repaired and propose considerable risk to the ageing population in the area. I also know of occasions where freshly dug graves in the churchyard have had to have water pumped out of them. Creating new houses on the proposed sites will dramatically reduce the amount of open land and large plant life able to soak up this water. Blackmore is at continual risk of flooding which makes the proposal unfit for purpose as it will create more of an issue. The council - if it wanted to build further homes in these parishes - would have to invest heavily the irrigation of the entire village to make these plans plausible. 5. Infrastructure The plan makes no provisions for the development of local amenities and infrastructure - and the local school and doctor's surgery are already at capacity­ and wait times are far too long for an increasingly ageing population. The internet connection is appalling, the sewage system is at tipping point, there are frequent power-cuts in the area already (so the board is unlikely to be able to cope with the addition of new properties), Public Transport is almost non-existent in the village (and the 61 bus, which I used for 2 years to get to work in Brentwood, was and continues to be under threat) and parking anywhere is a nightmare - especially on Sundays (church services) and during the yearly firework displays which are organised by the Parish Council. 6. A survey should have been carried out to demonstrate the need for housing - and in particular the need for 'type of housing'. I have already expressed my distaste for Epping Council's development of what I would call 'mansions'. Being 21 years of age, mortgaging a house anywhere in this area seems like a dream to me -one I hope to realise but one I have come to understand will be nearly impossible in my lifetime. 7. There are more suitable locations with better access to larger towns in the area: extensions to Brentwood or possibly increasing the size of the proposal for Dunton Hills would all have better transport links for commuters, on better kept roads. 8. Some of the proposed sites in Blackmore are incredibly vital to the survival of certain types of wildlife in the English countryside -we have seen a huge decline in the hedgehog population countrywide in the last few years and the green sites around Blackmore provide a safe haven for these creatures. 9. I have a particular problem with the regularisation of the Traveller site on Chelmsford Road as detailed in policy HP08. I served on the Parish Council for a year before I moved to Brentwood so I have experienced first-hand the failure of Brentwood Borough Council to exercise its duty to attempt to remove the Travellers from the site. I have sympathy obviously that the Travellers have had children who now attend the local school - but the very fact that they have been able to settle for that long just provides proof that they are no longer 'travelling'. Further prof has been sent to the Council in recent years of the fact that many 'Travellers' at that site actually own property elsewhere, which invalidates their 'Traveller' status. If this site is regularised, Brentwood is opening its doors to further illegal settlements. And on a personal note I feel this is an affront to honest people who are desperately trying to save to purchase a place to call their own legally - especially in an area of such high house/land prices. 10. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is neither of these things.

No development

I do not feel BBC has properly investigated other sites for development which would be suitable and not GREEN BELT. Access to the proposed sites from Red Rose Lane is unsuitable as it is a narrow country lane. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and will exacerbate the flooding problem already in Blackmore. The school is full. It is almost impossible to get a doctors appointment in less than a month. There would be increased traffic along narrow country lanes and what little public transport there is, is always under threat. Blackmore is a small village without the infrastructure to take on such a large increase in population.

BBC has not demonstrated that there are no brownfield sites that are available which should take priority over green belt land off Red Rose Lane. There are other more suitable locations e.g. urban extension to Brentwood - so the locations in Blackmore do not promote sustainable development. The proposed sites are liable to flood and building on this land will also increase the flood risk within a village that can be prone to flooding. The school will not be able to accommodate more children. The doctors surgery can barely cope with the existing population. We can wait four weeks to see a doctor at present.

Remove Blackmore from the list f proposed sites.

Unsound because: 1. Access at Redrose Lane unsuitable for traffic. 2. Available brownfield sites should take priority over greenbelt. 3. Blackmore is not equipped to deal with more population on this scale. The school and doctors surgery are already stretched to capacity. 4. There are more suitable / sustainable locations than Blackmore.

Object to 09 [R25 and R26], 04, 08

Sites R25 and R26 be removed from the LDP plan. Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan which sets out our local housing needs for our sustainable community.
Such plans will merge Blackmore into an urban sprawl, something counter to Brentwood's statement to preserve our environment, heritage and character.

Section 04
Section 08
Section 09 - policies R25 and R26.
Local plan is unsound due to failure to consult with Epping Forest District Council RE: 30 houses being built at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane and impact on village.
There is not clear strategy for the village including Blackmore in the north of the borough.
Red Rose Lane is a narrow dangerous lane not road with a band which is blind for pedestrians and traffic with no pavement facilities. School parking is congested in this area impeding traffic into the village, at entry to Redrose Lane in Nine Ashes Road.
Doctors waiting lists for appointment is 4 weeks at times. The village is an unsafe area for pedestrians due to narrow uneven pavements and parking. Blackmore school is full to capacity. Buses for commuters without cars (teenagers etc) is unsatisfactory - no later than 7PL. Counted 8 Skylarks in fields adjacent to Nine Ashes Road last year, will they remain with heavier traffic on Rod? Blackmore Road floods (above waist high).
Sites R25 and R26 be removed from the LDP plan. Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan which sets out our local housing needs for our sustainable community.
Such plans will merge Blackmore into an urban sprawl, something counter to Brentwood's statement to preserve our environment, heritage and character.

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.

Remove and drastically reduce the number of proposed houses in Blackmore to a maximum of 5. The infrastructure would have to be greatly improved with roads into the village being improved. School places would need to be found without having to drive to another part of Brentwood thus increasing pollution. A new GP Surgery would be needed as the only one in the village is under substantial pressure with waiting time for appointments at up to 3 weeks. Links for the villages via public transport would need to be sufficient for the ageing population.

See Attached

Remove and drastically reduce the number of proposed houses in Blackmore to a maximum of 5. The infrastructure would have to be greatly improved with roads into the village being improved. School places would need to be found without having to drive to another part of Brentwood thus increasing pollution. A new GP Surgery would be needed as the only one in the village is under substantial pressure with waiting time for appointments at up to 3 weeks. Links for the villages via public transport would need to be sufficient for the ageing population.

See attached