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

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.

Site R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. Blackmore Village Heritage Association in cooperation with the local Parish Councils will be producing a local needs plan that will look at the actual needs within the local area for what is already a sustainable community rather than producing a plan that just seeks to help the Borough Council meet its housing quota, and planners should instead refer to this and produce an updated plan in cooperation with the local community.

There is no clear strategy for Blackmore and other villages in the north of the borough. Brentwood Borough Council does not appear to have taken into consideration the proposals of neighbouring authorities e.g. Epping Forest District Council is proposing to construct 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane - the residents of these houses will almost certainly use Blackmore as a local shopping place adding both to the traffic along Fingrith Hall Lane and the parking congestion in the centre of Blackmore village. Both policies R25 and R26 are based upon development off Red Rose Lane which according to the plan will be the main vehicular access. In total the plan as it currently stands s to add 70 homes across the two allocations - Red Rose Lane is a narrow lane most of which is not wide enough to allow two cars to pass one another, but given Blackmore's relatively poor public transport connections we can expect an average of at least two additional cars per household and assuming a minimum of two journeys each day (one in and one out) that is 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane signs at each end stating that it is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles (see photos embedded below) and yet this will be the access route for all the construction traffic for the two sites. Red Rose Lane has drainage ditches running down either side of it which are important for local drainage and widening the road is not a viable option without further increasing the flood risk for the rest of the village. Please also see further comments below concerning the flood risk within the village. Both of these sites are green belt land. Section 2 in paragraph 2.8 of the plan classes Blackmore Settlement Category 3 Which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a spare rural setting that provide day to day needs for local residents. Brownfield redevelopment opportunities and limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. Development should be appropriate to the rural setting of the area. "Adding 70 homes on green belt land in a village with a population of 829 is neither appropriate to the rural setting nor is it brownfield redevelopment. This does not in any way seem to comply with Policy SP01: Sustainable Development which states in paragraph 4.9 "For a scheme to be acceptable, development will require to make satisfactory arrangements for vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access into the site and for parking and servicing within the site. Any traffic generated by the development should be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated by the transport network and not give rise to inaccessible highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns". The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for one village - this appears to contradict paragraph 8.101. There is also no justification as to why Blackmore, amongst a number of other settlements should be "excluded from the Green Belt" (paragraph 8.90). In addition the village primary school is already fully subscribed and the local doctor's surgery (which is located in Doddinghurst) is very busy and it can take up to two weeks to obtain an appointment. There is nothing within the development plan to mitigate for this. There is very limited parking in the centre of the village both outside the village shop and the two public houses and tea shops with cars regularly parked along both sides of Fingrith Hall Lane and around Horse Fayre Green and it can be expected that this only will only spread further into the surrounding residential areas and along to the village green with the additional cars that the proposed developments will bring. There does not appear to have been any housing needs survey to demonstrate why Blackmore requires such extensive development. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and building on these and concreting them over will increase the flood risk to the rest of the village. Blackmore lies in a shallow bowl of land at the top of a gentle valley with the River Wid emerging from the south side of The Moat. So, surface water drains from the west, north and east into the village and then around The Moat to become the River Wid. This is ok in normal conditions but when rainfall is extreme the streams and drainage pipes are overwhelmed with flooding of roads which is common and sometimes with danger to homes. There was flooding of roads in the village in June 2016 after heavy rain and I am aware that the home of one of our neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, dives, and roads which increase the speed of run-off of surface water will further increase the risk of overwhelming the drainage systems. This seems to totally contradict policy NE06. There is therefore no indication within the LDP as to how the proposed Policy R25 and R26 developments around Blackmore will be "repaired through significant benefits to the new and existing communities" (paragraph 8.114) - in fact due to the size of the proposals it would seem to be to the detriment of the existing community through the addition traffic, congestion and flood risk that would result from these policies.

Site R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDO. 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.