Remove Blackmore from the list of 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.

Remove sites R25 and R26

I feel as though the Plan is unsound, is not legally compliant and fails to comply with the duty to cooperate for sites R25 and R26 for the following reasons: 1. The number of houses proposed is far too many for the small village. The parking in the village is chaotic at the moment without the proposed new developments. 2. Local school, pre-school and doctors are oversubscribed already. 3. New development will affect the wildlife. On many occasions I have seen barn owls flying around the proposed development. 4. Cyclist, walkers come to Blackmore village to escape the hustle and bustle of towns. The new developments will change the whole feel of the village. There are very few, small, unspoilt villages left. 5. In the past the village has been flooded. The site proposed are liable to flooding. 6. More houses means more cars means more pollution. People come to the countryside to get away from it.

I do not think that any modification will be able to make the plan sustainable for Blackmore.

My concerns relate specifically to the sustainability of Blackmore's inclusion in the Local Plan. My points relating to Blackmore are shown on the attached type sheet below. 1. GP services are already badly stretched. It take three to four weeks to get a non-emergency appointment. A higher population will strain this service to breaking point. 2. Blackmore is already prone to flooding. Building on greenfield / Green Belt land can only worsen this situation by reducing the available drainage areas. 3. The only parking available in the village, other than by the village hall, which is a long walk from local facilities, is along the narrow roads. These are already becoming full of parked vehicles. 4. As a small village, many of Blackmore's roads, in particular in the Redrose Lane area, are not much more than narrow lanes with no footpaths. The roads cannot support additional traffic resulting from increased housing, let alone construction traffic. 5. Transport links from the village to town are poor, with the bus service permanently under threat. This forces people into their cars already, without adding to the burden. Blackmore is too far away and cut off from the town centre and railway stations to be of benefit to new residents wishing to work in town or commute elsewhere. 6. There is no proven need for more housing this far away from the town. 7. The proposed development is on Green Belt land when there are Brown Belt area more usefully located closer to Brentwood and Shenfield. 8. The proposal does not take into account the increased housing from areas of private development within Blackmore. 9. Blackmore is small village of historical importance and character. Further development, will damage it irreversibly.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDO. In accordance with 'local needs' some smaller homes could be allowed which would give existing residents the choice to "downsize", redeeming their (?) home.

Development of the proposed site has not been proven to be what is required in the village. Development by neighbouring authorities (e.g. Epping DC) have not been considered. Brownfield sites within BBC's authority have not been considered over Green field sites. Adjacent authorities have not been consulted. A 30 odd house development is already being built and other proposed sites e.g. Woollard Lane are "permission pending". The proposed development of 90 plus houses is far too many for the existing infrastructure, particularly Red Rose Lane for traffic 'and often local roads, doctors surgery is barely able to cope with the existing numbers and new classrooms would be needed in the local primary school. As Princess Ann supported a few years ago, if every village was about to build 4-5 houses, then local needs could be met and absorbed. BBC has not proposed this in other villages within its authority.

1. Remove the site from the plan and look at alternative brown fill sites and building fills. 2. Ask and consult local residents about what is required in the local district. 3. Discuss with the local councillors who know their area.

1. Major concerns about flooding in village due to additional strain on the drainage / sewage systems. 2. Overload on already strained infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors surgery, parking facilities. 3. Additional traffic and parking problems on already overused country lanes which were not designed for heavy traffic. 4. Building on green belt is not acceptable when brown fill sites are available.

1. Remove the site from the plan and look at alternative brown fill sites and building fills. 2. Ask and consult local residents about what is required in the local district. 3. Discuss with the local councillors who know their area.

1. Major concerns about flooding in village due to additional strain on the drainage / sewage systems. 2. Overload on already strained infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors surgery, parking facilities. 3. Additional traffic and parking problems on already overused country lanes which were not designed for heavy traffic. 4. Building on green belt is not acceptable when brown fill sites are available.

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.

I really can't see what modifications could be considered in view of the infrastructure of the village. In view of my previous comments - the potential flooding - the narrow lanes - the parking - schools, doctors at full capacity.

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

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

Site R25 and R26 to be removed from the LDP and Planners to refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which details the local housing needs, etc.

See attached

Sites R25 and R26 be removed from the LDP Plan. You need to refer to he Blackmore Village Heritage Association for our Local Housing Needs for our sustainable community. We do not want unwanted and unjustified large scale development. There has been no 'Housing Needs Survey' to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP. Was is not the Brentwood Borough Council who said "we will continue to protect our key assets including the environment, heritage and character of the borough".

See attached

Please refer to the plan put together by BVHA

See attached

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

See attached.

Site R25 and R26 to be removed. BVHA neighbourhood Plan sets out the local housing needs, that are sustainable.

See attached.