Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22304

Received: 16/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Stephen Chapman

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

House building on the site is not reasonable.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 from plan

Full text:

House building on the site is not reasonable.
Redrose Lane is not fit for the traffic, being too narrow at places.
The installation of utilities will be difficult, being at the edge of the village.
The area is a natural relief floodplain for Blackmore, which already sees almost being cut off by deep water after periods of heavy rain and this development would make the situation worse.
The local community services are already at stretch - parking around the single shop is already a problem; there are no pavements in the area of Redrose Lane, making it potentially unsafe for local pedestrians if this and the adjacent development drive up local traffic.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22487

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Essex County Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

2. Justified.
3. Effective.
4. Consistent with National Policy.

Request insertion of clarification in respect of Floods and SuDS after paragraphs 9.193, 9.196 and 9.200, in line with paragraphs 155 and 156 of the NPPF.

Change suggested by respondent:

Insert following wording as additional paragraph after paragraphs 9.193, 9.196 and 9.200 -

The proposed development area is not within areas identified at risk of flooding. It should however be ensured that any development within this area complies with flood risk mitigation measures outlined in the Essex SuDS guide.

Full text:

2. Justified.
3. Effective.
4. Consistent with National Policy.

Request insertion of clarification in respect of Floods and SuDS after paragraphs 9.193, 9.196 and 9.200, in line with paragraphs 155 and 156 of the NPPF.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 23127

Received: 17/03/2019

Respondent: Ms Wendy Cohen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Additional planned housing developments in Blackmore will further exacerbate the stresses on Blackmore's already overloaded infrastructure and services and, subsequently, the quality of life of residents.

Change suggested by respondent:

Brentwood Council should: conduct a 'Housing Need survey' of Blackmore village to demonstrate that the development is justified; demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available; highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken.

Full text:

Unsound because: 1. Brentwood Borough Council has failed to provide a development strategy for the villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been prepared appropriately because it lacks any provision for meeting the village's needs, which have not been objectively assessed. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of an assessment of the housing needs within the village. 2. Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities and has failed to account for the impact of developments in close proximity to the village. This contradicts key requirements of the LDP, as a nearby development of around 30 houses is under way on Fingriths of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account. 3. Additional planned housing developments on Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs, near to Blackmore, have not been considered by the planners. These properties will rely on the village of Blackmore and further exacerbate the stresses on already overloaded infrastructure and services. 4. Blackmore is a small village with modest services and infrastructure. Currently, Blackmore has minimal public transport providing access to the local towns of Brentwood and Chelmsford, a heavily oversubscribed primary school, a severely overstretched GP / Health service, narrow and heavily used roads, and desperately insufficient parking around the local shop. Additional housing on the scale proposed in the LDP will have a dramatically detrimental effect on these services and, subsequently, the quality of life of Blackmore's residents. The LDP fails to demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be sustained by the existing infrastructure and is, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement to achieve sustainable development. 5. Far more suitable and sustainable locations are available within Brentwood Borough Council, that would provide much better access to urban development and services. Blackmore does not present the opportunity to achieve sustainable development. 6. The proposed development is on Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Amendments to boundaries around the village of Blackmore have not be fully evidenced and justified as required by national policy. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, in particular that there are no other brownfield sites off Red Rose Lane. The LDP is therefore unsound because it does not take into account reasonable alternatives and the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and is therefore contrary to national planning policy. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states @When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land." 7. Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence. 8. There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of dwellings proposed in the village. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence. 9. The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements that would result from the proposed development. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable. 10. The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and a neighbouring field was rejected from the LDP proposal because of the risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development may not be deliverable. 11. Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, various species of bat, and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy

Attachments: