The above sites should be removed from the LDP and the planners should refer to the Blackmore Village Heritage Association Neighbourhood Plan. This clearly sets out the village's local housing needs for our already sustainable community.

The proposed developments of R25 and R26 of the Local Plan, in conjunction with the current development of 30 houses at Fingrith Hall Lane and a proposed development of affordable housing in Nine Ashes Road will put extreme pressure on the infrastructure and facilities currently being sustained by Blackmore Village.
There has been inadequate consultation between Brentwood BC and Epping Forest DC.
The categorisation of Category 3 (i.e. large village) given to Blackmore Village should be downgraded to a Category 4 (i.e. small village). Total population 829. Village consists of one village shop, which includes 1 desk for the Post Office and one small Primary School. The nearest Doctors Surgery in Doddinghurst, which is already experiencing appointment difficulties and this will be exacerbated by the proposed developments of R23 and R24.
The proposed sites are liable to flood and building on these sites will increase the flood risk elsewhere in the village, of which there is photographic evidence.
There has been no Housing Needs Survey to demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP and the decision contradicts the LDP which in 2016 stated that growth in Rural North and Rural South areas of the Borough would be limited to retain "local character".
The proposed developments in Blackmore do not promote sustainable development and other suitable/sustainable locations e.g. urban extension to Brentwood should be considered plus further addition to "The Dunton Hills Garden Village" project.

Proposed modifications
The above sites should be removed from the LDP and the planners should refer to the Blackmore Village Heritage Association Neighbourhood Plan. This clearly sets out the village's local housing needs for our already sustainable community.

Refer to Blackmore Heritage Village Association Neighbourhood Plan.

I consider the plan as unsound for a variety of reasons. It will put pressure on a rural infrastructure. The character of the village will be impacted, currently it is enjoyed by local people and others who come to walk, bike ride, horse ride and run. Additional traffic due to increased car journeys will put pressure on local lanes, parking etc, especially as bus routes will not suit everyone's daily routines.
Medical centre, shop and school also impacted adversely.
The village is in designated 100% Green Belt land, other sites i.e. brownfield are available should be considered first. There should be efforts to protect the countryside for the benefit of all as it is fast disappearing in this area.

Proposed modifications:
Refer to Blackmore Heritage Village Association Neighbourhood Plan.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the plan and that planners should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs for our already sustainable community.

Sections: 04; 08; 09: see attached. Site allocations, disproportionate growth to Blackmore, flood risk, green belt. Blackmore infrastructure cannot cope now, without all the planned dwellings, We cant park in the village, our school is full, doctors waiting time is lengthy.

I fully agree with the objectives of Blackmore Village Heritage Association.

I do not think the houses should be built on Green Belt land in Blackmore. It would put untold pressure on an already busy doctors surgery, on the small local school, public transport, parking etc.
There are more suitable sites sustainable locations. Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services.

Proposed modification:
I fully agree with the objectives of Blackmore Village Heritage Association.

Should consider alternative sites , not Green Belt, ideally brownfield sites. Remove R25 and R26 form plan. Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan which sets out local housing need

There is no clear 'strategy ' for the villages including Blackmore, in the north of the borough. BBC has not consulted adequately with Epping Forest District Council. Over houses being constructed and/or planned close to Blackmore village. The principle of residential development off of Redrose Lane is wrong, Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure (The school and preschool is full, the doctors surgery is Doddinghurst is already over subscribed, inadequate bus service, narrow lanes and already dangerous parking, sewerage system is overloaded already etc). There are more suitable and or sustainable locations, eg urban extensions of Brentwood (eg Honeypot Lane), and the locations in Blackmore so not promote sustainable development. BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the Greenfield/Green Belt land off of Redrose Lane. BBC has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other (allocated) sites. There has been no 'housing needs survey' to demonstrate why Blackmore village is included in the LDP. The access off/from Redrose Lane is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic movements. The entire village is prone to severe flooding, and sites R25 and R26 are both liable to flood. Building on this land will only increase the flood risk elsewhere in the village.

I believe that R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. Planners should refer to the Blackmore village Heritage Association "neighbourhood plan" which clearly sets out our local housing needs to avoid further development locally.  

Refer to attached form. Objection to Blackmore sites R25 and R26.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community. Also remove the Site GT 16 - a II 8 previously unapproved pitches. Leave Blackmore IN Green Belt and restore the classification of "Rural Village in a sparse setting (which it is for roads, Buses, etc. etc. it really is) I am very unhappy that you have chosen to issue such a difficult form to complete with wholly unnecessary/inappropriate personal elements in Section A. It has taken me an unacceptable amount of time to understand and complete. I am very tempted to believe this is a deliberate attempt to stifle meaningful comment. A lot of people who hold views exactly like mine HAVE been put off from objecting because of this.

I do not believe the plan is sound, positively prepared, is not effective and cannot, therefore, cannot be consistent with National Planning Policy for the following reasons: 1. There been grossly insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council (EF) which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane which will have a major impact on the local facilities, the utilities and the traffic in Blackmore. Also four pairs of semi's even closer to Blackmore built in the last few years. These need to be assessed with the 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore. 2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over70 properties. This is a single track road, and is already dangerous for walkers and horse riders. Adding the extra volume of traffic on this road is completely unsuitable. 3. The village has already been subject to serious flooding in recent years, most recently being 3 years ago, when several houses on the Green were flooded. Additionally several of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems. (See attached photo from June 2016 of the junction of The Green and Chelmsford/lngatestone Road) 4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. No appropriate mitigation is highlighted in the plan. 5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered and others - such as Honey Pot Lane and Red Rose Farm - completely ignored orwithdrawn. 6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LOP, and why other areas have not. The survey carried out by local reps has been entirely ignored. 7. The Borough Council has not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan or continuing to include Honey Pot Lane (now removed from the latest draft). 8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby (Red Rose Farm as one example) but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land. 9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people. 10. Adding 200-300 more cars (over70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes. 11. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal. 12. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures. 13. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularise an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road (at Oak Tree Farm-plots 1,2,3). This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of its services. 14.1 feel very strongly that Blackmore is already extended to the limit of its capability if it is to retain the rural feel, historic nature and

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed form the LDP and the planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan' which clearly sets out our local housing needs, for our already sustainable community.

Refer to attached form. The infrastructure is already stretched, and these additional developments would have a significant negative impact to the local community including provision for medical services and schooling. Bus services to larger employment locations (Brentwood Chelmsford, Epping) are totally inadequate. The designated sites have flooding issues, a problems across wider Blackmore footprint and development will cause further problems, increasing the flood rate.
There are other Brownfield sites within existing urban boundaries (and local infrastructure and transport grids) better suited to development, negating the need to destroy Green Belt environments. There has been no evidence that Blackmore has a housing need requiring such scale of development.
Sites R25 and R26 should be removed form the LDP and the planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan' which clearly sets out our local housing needs, for our already sustainable community.

R25 and R26 should be taken out of the LDP> The 'Neighbourhood Plan' from the BVHA should be looked at by the planners. This clearly sets out the local housing needs.

See attached sheet

Please refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan.

I believe the plan is unsound for a number of reasons:
Blackmore is a rural and isolated village with inadequate services and infrastructure to accommodate the planned development.
Brentwood Borough Council have not looked at the use of brownfield sites to take priority over the greenfield (and Green Belt) land off of Red Rose Lane.
There has been no survey conducted to demonstrate why there is any need to include Blackmore in the LDP.
Access to the site at Red Rose Lane is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic from the proposed development.
Suggested modifications:
Please refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan.

Road network to be improved, including road widening from A414 to the village. Suitable drainage, speed restrictions etc.
Increased NHS facilities as it is impossible to get a doctors appointment at Deal Tree health centre.
Development of local school facility to cope with an increase of 100 families in the area.
The current local shop/post office is inadequate in size to cope and will need to increase.
Increases in public transport.
Flood improvements and preventative measures to be put in place.
Increase parking facilities (nightmare as it is already!)

Building on land liable to flood and increase the chance of drainage issues all around the village including farm land and local residents properties.
Building the amount of houses currently suggested should be reduced to less than 30 to allow the community to cope. There's already too many residents for the facilities we currently have.
Other more suitable locations should be considered closer to Brentwood and the recent development by Epping Forest DC is on the same road. Traffic will be a nightmare as Blackmore is already used as a cut through.
No housing needs survey;
Red Rose Lane unsuitable for heavy traffic.
Proposed modifications:
Road network to be improved, including road widening from A414 to the village. Suitable drainage, speed restrictions etc.
Increased NHS facilities as it is impossible to get a doctors appointment at Deal Tree health centre.
Development of local school facility to cope with an increase of 100 families in the area.
The current local shop/post office is inadequate in size to cope and will need to increase.
Increases in public transport.
Flood improvements and preventative measures to be put in place.
Increase parking facilities (nightmare as it is already!)

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

Refer to attached form.

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

Object to the plan - refer to attached form

I am a member of BVHA and fully support their objectives and delivery of their mission. I wish to be represented by BVHA.

This is Green Belt and should be kept that way. There at not enough community facilities in the area. IE: doctors surgeries, buses, rubbish clearance, sewerage, road infrastructure is not adequate for extra traffic, The plan is totally unsound in respect of Blackmore.
I am a member of BVHA and fully support their objectives and delivery of their mission. I wish to be represented by BVHA.

I am a member of BVHA and fully support their objectives and delivery of their mission.

Unsound relating to Blackmore because; Green Belt land should not be built on. Cant get a doctors appointment as it is. The village is liable to flooding. Red Rose Lane is way too narrow for an access point, The clues in the title (lane). There are other more suitable sites.
I am a member of BVHA and fully support their objectives and delivery of their mission.

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

Refer to attached form

Refer to attached form

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

Refer to attached form

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

Refer to attached form

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

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

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

Refer to attached form

I believe BBC should remove Blackmore from the list of proposed sites and find a more suitable and sustainable "brownfield" site that could cope with the residential development and perhaps an urban extension to Brentwood where the infrastructure is already in place.
Necessary to build a refuse tip - al have been removed from local area, hence the increase in fly tipping etc.
Do a housing needs survey, to check schools, doctors, services, etc.

Refer to attached form

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

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

Both sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. Planners should look at the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly states the housing needs of the local community. Green Belt land should not be built on when brownfield sites are available. Housing needs survey should be done.

Refer to attached form

Please refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan.

Refer to attached form

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

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

Changes have been set out in the BVHA neighbourhood plan and I refer to this document.
Happy to be represented by the BVHA and Roger Keeble

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

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

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

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

A significant reduction in the scale and number of houses to be built.

Policies: R25; R26; SP02; SP02; NE06; NE13
This will put intolerable pressure on GP services the local surgery fails to me demand. Blackmore is a small community based around a small number of roads that are not designed to meet the inevitable increase in traffic due to a wholly inadequate public transport service. It is the level and scale of this development that is excessive and inappropriate.
A significant reduction in the scale and number of houses to be built.

Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan

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