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.

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

Flood risk/drainage assessment should be undertaken.

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

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

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.

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

Sites 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 is 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 per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has 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 as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse 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 be required 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 unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this 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 near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives 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 "repaid 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.

Sites 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 is 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 per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has 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 as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse 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 be required 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 unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this 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 near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives 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 "repaid 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.

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 is 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 per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has 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 as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse 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 be required 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 unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this 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 near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives 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 "repaid 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.

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 is 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 per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has 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 as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse 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 be required 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 unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this 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 near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives 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 "repaid 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.

1.0 Introduction
1.0.1 Thank you for consulting the Basildon & Brentwood Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) on the above emerging Local Development Plan (LP) Document.
1.1 In reviewing the context, content and recommendations of the LP Document and its current phase of progression, the following comments are with regard to the Healthcare provision on behalf of the STP
2.0 Existing Healthcare Position in the Emerging Plan Area
2.1 The LP Document covers the administrative area of Brentwood.
2.2 Currently, within the administrative area, healthcare provision incorporates a total of 9 GP Practices, 13 pharmacists, 9 dental surgeries, 10 Opticians, 2 community clinics and 2 community hospitals.
2.3 These are the healthcare services available that this Local Plan must take into account in formulating future strategies.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infrastructure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infrastructure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infrastructure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. There may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. The deficiencies in the local infrastructure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reduce the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.

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. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have 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.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. 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 for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

There is more suitable locations that have already good transport links without spoiling Blackmore by putting a minimum of 70 houses on greenbelt land.

Section 09: R25 , R26 two fields off of Red Rose Lane
Section 08: Greenbelt flooding, 04- Managing growth
Unsound :

The principle of residential development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong because Blackmore is an isolated village with minimal services i.e.; doctors already covers four villages and cannot cope, we have to wait two to four weeks for an appointment. Bus services is minimal and everyone will need their own transport. Which the roads won't cope.
There is more suitable locations that have already good transport links without spoiling the village. With putting minimum of 70 houses on greenbelt land.

Remove site R25 from plan

I wish to submit my objection to the plans to build approx 70 new homes in Blackmore, Essex. In 2017/2018 Brentwood Council overturned there longstanding planning policy saying that our area was deemed unsuitable, I know things have changed where there is a lot of pressure to build new homes in all area's but surely Blackmore has not changed, the inter structure cannot deal with this sort of development. Red Rose Lane itself is just a tiny country lane not suitable for a lot of traffic your also looking at plans to allow 9 property's Chelmsford Road, again more traffic surely this is not the right area for this sort of planning

There is more suitable locations that have already good transport links without spoiling Blackmore by putting a minimum of 70 houses on greenbelt land.

Section 09: R25 , R26 two fields off of Red Rose Lane
Section 08: Greenbelt flooding, 04- Managing growth
Unsound :

The principle of residential development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong because Blackmore is an isolated village with minimal services i.e.; doctors already covers four villages and cannot cope, we have to wait two to four weeks for an appointment. Bus services is minimal and everyone will need their own transport. Which the roads won't cope.
There is more suitable locations that have already good transport links without spoiling the village. With putting minimum of 70 houses on greenbelt land.

Remove site R25 from plan

I wish to submit my objection to the plans to build approx 70 new homes in Blackmore, Essex. In 2017/2018 Brentwood Council overturned there longstanding planning policy saying that our area was deemed unsuitable, I know things have changed where there is a lot of pressure to build new homes in all area's but surely Blackmore has not changed, the inter structure cannot deal with this sort of development. Red Rose Lane itself is just a tiny country lane not suitable for a lot of traffic your also looking at plans to allow 9 property's Chelmsford Road, again more traffic surely this is not the right area for this sort of planning

Any development would have to be significantly reduced - in addition large family houses would attract the more wealthy home-owners which most certainly would work elsewhere and commute.
Local inhabitants would be priced out making it almost impossible for them to get on the 'housing ladder'. Therefore a smaller number of affordable properties should be made available.
More investigations should be carried out on the sustainability of the utilities available.

The Local Plan is unsound because of several mitigating factors - whilst Brentwood Council has a legal obligation to provide housing via the Governments initiatives, listed below are my concerns & objections:

1) Firstly Blackmore Primary School has less than 90 pupils - there would have to be an investment to enlarge the present premises.
2) There is hardly any local employment in the immediate area.
3) The roads are too narrow and restricted to enable adequate flow of traffic.
4) Once again further investment would be needed with road improvements (roundabouts etc.).
5) A major incursion onto green belt land which would significantly impact on the unique character of the parish.
6) The area is a natural flood plain where drainage and sewerage would be a major problem.
7) There are no safety measures such as street lighting and paving - young people would be at an increased risk.
8) The size of the proposed build is too large for a village of this size - nearly 30%!
9) Parking is a major problem in Blackmore - locals and visitors regularly use the local facilities and struggle to park.
I believe the above are justifiable objections which hopefully will be taken into consideration, whilst appreciating the situation Brentwood Council is facing.

Unsound:
BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the greenfield land off Red Rose Lane.
There has been no Housing Needs Survey to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP.
The access off/from Red Rose Lane is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements if development goes ahead.
Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan".

Any development would have to be significantly reduced - in addition large family houses would attract the more wealthy home-owners which most certainly would work elsewhere and commute.
Local inhabitants would be priced out making it almost impossible for them to get on the 'housing ladder'. Therefore a smaller number of affordable properties should be made available.
More investigations should be carried out on the sustainability of the utilities available.

The Local Plan is unsound because of several mitigating factors - whilst Brentwood Council has a legal obligation to provide housing via the Governments initiatives, listed below are my concerns & objections:

1) Firstly Blackmore Primary School has less than 90 pupils - there would have to be an investment to enlarge the present premises.
2) There is hardly any local employment in the immediate area.
3) The roads are too narrow and restricted to enable adequate flow of traffic.
4) Once again further investment would be needed with road improvements (roundabouts etc.).
5) A major incursion onto green belt land which would significantly impact on the unique character of the parish.
6) The area is a natural flood plain where drainage and sewerage would be a major problem.
7) There are no safety measures such as street lighting and paving - young people would be at an increased risk.
8) The size of the proposed build is too large for a village of this size - nearly 30%!
9) Parking is a major problem in Blackmore - locals and visitors regularly use the local facilities and struggle to park.
I believe the above are justifiable objections which hopefully will be taken into consideration, whilst appreciating the situation Brentwood Council is facing.

Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan".

Unsound:
BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the greenfield land off Red Rose Lane.
There has been no Housing Needs Survey to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP.
The access off/from Red Rose Lane is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements if development goes ahead.
Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan".

Any development would have to be significantly reduced - in addition large family houses would attract the more wealthy home-owners which most certainly would work elsewhere and commute.
Local inhabitants would be priced out making it almost impossible for them to get on the 'housing ladder'. Therefore a smaller number of affordable properties should be made available.
More investigations should be carried out on the sustainability of the utilities available.

The Local Plan is unsound because of several mitigating factors - whilst Brentwood Council has a legal obligation to provide housing via the Governments initiatives, listed below are my concerns & objections:

1) Firstly Blackmore Primary School has less than 90 pupils - there would have to be an investment to enlarge the present premises.
2) There is hardly any local employment in the immediate area.
3) The roads are too narrow and restricted to enable adequate flow of traffic.
4) Once again further investment would be needed with road improvements (roundabouts etc.).
5) A major incursion onto green belt land which would significantly impact on the unique character of the parish.
6) The area is a natural flood plain where drainage and sewerage would be a major problem.
7) There are no safety measures such as street lighting and paving - young people would be at an increased risk.
8) The size of the proposed build is too large for a village of this size - nearly 30%!
9) Parking is a major problem in Blackmore - locals and visitors regularly use the local facilities and struggle to park.
I believe the above are justifiable objections which hopefully will be taken into consideration, whilst appreciating the situation Brentwood Council is facing.

Any development would have to be significantly reduced - in addition large family houses would attract the more wealthy home-owners which most certainly would work elsewhere and commute.
Local inhabitants would be priced out making it almost impossible for them to get on the 'housing ladder'. Therefore a smaller number of affordable properties should be made available.
More investigations should be carried out on the sustainability of the utilities available.

The Local Plan is unsound because of several mitigating factors - whilst Brentwood Council has a legal obligation to provide housing via the Governments initiatives, listed below are my concerns & objections:

1) Firstly Blackmore Primary School has less than 90 pupils - there would have to be an investment to enlarge the present premises.
2) There is hardly any local employment in the immediate area.
3) The roads are too narrow and restricted to enable adequate flow of traffic.
4) Once again further investment would be needed with road improvements (roundabouts etc.).
5) A major incursion onto green belt land which would significantly impact on the unique character of the parish.
6) The area is a natural flood plain where drainage and sewerage would be a major problem.
7) There are no safety measures such as street lighting and paving - young people would be at an increased risk.
8) The size of the proposed build is too large for a village of this size - nearly 30%!
9) Parking is a major problem in Blackmore - locals and visitors regularly use the local facilities and struggle to park.
I believe the above are justifiable objections which hopefully will be taken into consideration, whilst appreciating the situation Brentwood Council is facing.