As a co-landowner of site HELAA Ref: 076, the subject of Policy R26, Land North of Orchard Piece, Blackmore, I agree that this site is suitable for Green Belt release in order to provide new homes for the local community and to ensure development is not limited to the centre and south of the Borough. The current pre-submission document is both a sound plan and legally compliant. It is the result of a positively framed, technically researched, participatory process that began some ten years ago. I support the sequential land-use approach, in particular Policy NE9 8.88 "development in the Green Belt will be deemed necessary to support rural economies, to ensure the sustainability of villages"(p228) and Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt 8.115 "New housing development in these locations will provide for a range of needs as advised by evidence, such as the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and local housing strategy. This could be to provide starter homes,...and smaller units, for example to allow older people to have a realistic option to downsize and free up larger homes for families" (p238). Policy R26 supports item 2.8 "To promote sustainable growth in rural areas, the NPPF (2018) paragraph 78 states that housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities, to ensure villages grow and thrive." (p21) The last development in the village of Blackmore took place in the 1960s, Policy R26 would serve to:  update the housing stock to meet new design and energy efficient features (SP01: Sustainable development);  increase housing in a larger village to meet local needs in the next 15 years (SP02: Managing growth);  Provide mixed housing, with some smaller units in a desirable setting that will encourage social interaction (HP01). I do not agree that the allocation of Policy R26 has been reduced from 40 to 30 units as there is an acute need at a local level for both private and affordable housing, and there is no technical justification for this change. According to Policy HP03 "Residential development proposals will generally be expected to achieve a net density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare net or higher.." Accordingly the net area of this site (1.52 hectares) this would equate to around 53 units. Therefore, given the need to provide sufficient housing supply for the coming 15 years an allocation of approximately 40 units should be reinstated. We chose to work with Crest Nicholson, a locally based national award winning house builder, in the knowledge that Crest has the capability to effectively deliver housing of a high standard within the next two years. (SP:06 p60). Crest has the construction management design and expertise (SP:05 p58) to provide the housing needed, while preserving and enhancing the character and settlement of Blackmore. (SP:01) In response to some comments from local residents, I would like to add that our site has not been used for arable farming owing to the quality of the soil. It faces Redrose Farm, once a dairy farm owned by our grandparents. Some of the agricultural land was sold to build Orchard Piece. The availability of new housing meant that we were able to live close by to our grandparents. Redrose Lane is at the outer edge of the village and our site lies within the village boundary. Policy R26 will give priority to those with "demonstrable local connection and those over 50". The latter is also important as there is insufficient housing stock for down-sizing in Blackmore.
In over 60 years of family ownership, we have not experienced flooding on our land. Furthermore it should be noted that a development on this site would lead to a betterment in the management of surface water discharge rates. Land North of Orchard Piece, Policy R26, is a discrete site of only 1.52 hectares and represents a natural boundary to the settlement and release of this site for a small housing development would provide a boost to the village of Blackmore

As a co-landowner of site HELAA Ref: 076, the subject of Policy R26, Land North of Orchard Piece, Blackmore, I agree that this site is suitable for Green Belt release in order to provide new homes for the local community and to ensure development is not limited to the centre and south of the Borough. The current pre-submission document is both a sound plan and legally compliant. It is the result of a positively framed, technically researched, participatory process that began some ten years ago. I support the sequential land-use approach, in particular Policy NE9 8.88 "development in the Green Belt will be deemed necessary to support rural economies, to ensure the sustainability of villages"(p228) and Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt 8.115 "New housing development in these locations will provide for a range of needs as advised by evidence, such as the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and local housing strategy. This could be to provide starter homes,...and smaller units, for example to allow older people to have a realistic option to downsize and free up larger homes for families" (p238). Policy R26 supports item 2.8 "To promote sustainable growth in rural areas, the NPPF (2018) paragraph 78 states that housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities, to ensure villages grow and thrive." (p21) The last development in the village of Blackmore took place in the 1960s, Policy R26 would serve to:  update the housing stock to meet new design and energy efficient features (SP01: Sustainable development);  increase housing in a larger village to meet local needs in the next 15 years (SP02: Managing growth);  Provide mixed housing, with some smaller units in a desirable setting that will encourage social interaction (HP01). I do not agree that the allocation of Policy R26 has been reduced from 40 to 30 units as there is an acute need at a local level for both private and affordable housing, and there is no technical justification for this change. According to Policy HP03 "Residential development proposals will generally be expected to achieve a net density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare net or higher.." Accordingly the net area of this site (1.52 hectares) this would equate to around 53 units. Therefore, given the need to provide sufficient housing supply for the coming 15 years an allocation of approximately 40 units should be reinstated. We chose to work with Crest Nicholson, a locally based national award winning house builder, in the knowledge that Crest has the capability to effectively deliver housing of a high standard within the next two years. (SP:06 p60). Crest has the construction management design and expertise (SP:05 p58) to provide the housing needed, while preserving and enhancing the character and settlement of Blackmore. (SP:01) In response to some comments from local residents, I would like to add that our site has not been used for arable farming owing to the quality of the soil. It faces Redrose Farm, once a dairy farm owned by our grandparents. Some of the agricultural land was sold to build Orchard Piece. The availability of new housing meant that we were able to live close by to our grandparents. Redrose Lane is at the outer edge of the village and our site lies within the village boundary. Policy R26 will give priority to those with "demonstrable local connection and those over 50". The latter is also important as there is insufficient housing stock for down-sizing in Blackmore.
In over 60 years of family ownership, we have not experienced flooding on our land. Furthermore it should be noted that a development on this site would lead to a betterment in the management of surface water discharge rates. Land North of Orchard Piece, Policy R26, is a discrete site of only 1.52 hectares and represents a natural boundary to the settlement and release of this site for a small housing development would provide a boost to the village of Blackmore

Given the need to provide sufficient housing supply for the coming 15 years an allocation of approximately 40 units should be reinstated.

As a co-landowner of site HELAA Ref: 076, the subject of Policy R26, Land North of Orchard Piece, Blackmore, I agree that this site is suitable for Green Belt release in order to provide new homes for the local community and to ensure development is not limited to the centre and south of the Borough. The current pre-submission document is both a sound plan and legally compliant. It is the result of a positively framed, technically researched, participatory process that began some ten years ago. I support the sequential land-use approach, in particular Policy NE9 8.88 "development in the Green Belt will be deemed necessary to support rural economies, to ensure the sustainability of villages"(p228) and Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt 8.115 "New housing development in these locations will provide for a range of needs as advised by evidence, such as the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and local housing strategy. This could be to provide starter homes,...and smaller units, for example to allow older people to have a realistic option to downsize and free up larger homes for families" (p238). Policy R26 supports item 2.8 "To promote sustainable growth in rural areas, the NPPF (2018) paragraph 78 states that housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities, to ensure villages grow and thrive." (p21) The last development in the village of Blackmore took place in the 1960s, Policy R26 would serve to:  update the housing stock to meet new design and energy efficient features (SP01: Sustainable development);  increase housing in a larger village to meet local needs in the next 15 years (SP02: Managing growth);  Provide mixed housing, with some smaller units in a desirable setting that will encourage social interaction (HP01). I do not agree that the allocation of Policy R26 has been reduced from 40 to 30 units as there is an acute need at a local level for both private and affordable housing, and there is no technical justification for this change. According to Policy HP03 "Residential development proposals will generally be expected to achieve a net density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare net or higher.." Accordingly the net area of this site (1.52 hectares) this would equate to around 53 units. Therefore, given the need to provide sufficient housing supply for the coming 15 years an allocation of approximately 40 units should be reinstated. We chose to work with Crest Nicholson, a locally based national award winning house builder, in the knowledge that Crest has the capability to effectively deliver housing of a high standard within the next two years. (SP:06 p60). Crest has the construction management design and expertise (SP:05 p58) to provide the housing needed, while preserving and enhancing the character and settlement of Blackmore. (SP:01) In response to some comments from local residents, I would like to add that our site has not been used for arable farming owing to the quality of the soil. It faces Redrose Farm, once a dairy farm owned by our grandparents. Some of the agricultural land was sold to build Orchard Piece. The availability of new housing meant that we were able to live close by to our grandparents. Redrose Lane is at the outer edge of the village and our site lies within the village boundary. Policy R26 will give priority to those with "demonstrable local connection and those over 50". The latter is also important as there is insufficient housing stock for down-sizing in Blackmore.
In over 60 years of family ownership, we have not experienced flooding on our land. Furthermore it should be noted that a development on this site would lead to a betterment in the management of surface water discharge rates. Land North of Orchard Piece, Policy R26, is a discrete site of only 1.52 hectares and represents a natural boundary to the settlement and release of this site for a small housing development would provide a boost to the village of Blackmore

Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

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 :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

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 :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Flood risk/drainage assessment should be undertaken.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken.

Unsound because :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

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 :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

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 :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

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 :-
-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.
- 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 Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- 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.
- 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 services, 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.
- 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.
- 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 available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 proposals 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.
- 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, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

1. Blackmore is a small village and as such has just enough amenities to support the number of people living here at present.
One local store, two public houses, hairdressers and a garage. At the moment parking in the centre of our village at times can be a nightmare, extra cars in the village will just add to this. Parking outside the local shop at present is now dangerous. In the event of an emergency will emergency vehicles manage to get past the often double parked cars?
The new development on the ex riding stables by Epping Forest council in Fingrith Hall Road can only add to the problem as traffic will use Blackmore as an access route and drive down to use the local shop.
Has BBC consulted with Epping Forest District council on the impact their developments have on our village?

2. Can our doctors practice cope with more people? Try getting an appointment, you have to wait weeks now. This can only get worse.

3. Can our local school cope with all the extra children any development would bring to the village?

4. We moved to Blackmore to be surrounded by green fields. Leaving our house at present within minutes we can enjoy the open countryside looking across farmland and walking along reasonably quiet country roads. We enjoy taking our dog around the village and especially along Red Rose Lane en route to our park. What will it be like in the future? Instead of green belt open countryside, urban development and our narrow lane turned into a busy access road. It certainly is not suitable for the volume of traffic any new development would create.

5. If this development does go ahead, how many years of disruption through our village. Large lorries hurtling through our country roads, breaking up the road surface. Noise, dust, road works when new sewers, pipes etc. for the essential services are required to be laid.

ALL OF THE ABOVE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR LIVES AND WILL CERTAINLY DAMAGE THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF OUR BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. THE REASON WHY WE LOVE LIVING IN BLACKMORE. THIS IS A SMALL VILLAGE...KEEP IT THAT WAY.

What needs to be done........Leave Blackmore alone, let the residents continue to enjoy their way of life. If building needs to be done look for brown belt sites in more suitable areas first before greenbelt areas are considered. Many of which I understand have been identified but rejected.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.

My modification would be that sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA 'neighbourhood plan'. This clearly sets out our local housing needs, and would avoid further development in the Blackmore area which is an already sustainable community.

I do not believe the plan is sound for the following reasons:
1. There has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. For example Epping Forest District Council which is building about 30 new houses just 1 mile north of Blackmore at the top of Fingrith Hall lane. This will have a major impact on the village amenities, and will increase traffic flow though the village, especially when added to the over 70 new properties being proposed for Blackmore.
2. The access to/from Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the addition of over 70 properties as it is a single track lane which is unsuitable for heavy construction traffic, and the following traffic generated by the 70 properties.
3. The village has historically been subject to serious flooding, most recently being 3 years ago. Red Rose lane is susceptible to flooding and this makes it impassable to vehicles. Adding over 70 properties with their associated run-off will cause further flooding problems, even with the adoption of SUDS.
4. The sewerage, electricity and other utilities were not designed to cope with an additional 70 properties (an increase of around 30%) without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road.
5. There has been no clear housing strategy for the North of the Borough. Whilst there are many options that could be considered for building houses in the North of the Borough, it is as if Blackmore has been chosen with virtually no other options being considered.
6. There has been no 'Housing Needs' survey carried out which would demonstrate why Blackmore has been included in the LDP, and why other areas have not.
7. 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.
8. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using greenfield, Green Belt land.
9. Putting a substantial residential development in the north of the village on Green Belt land off of Red Rose Lane which increases the housing in a historic village by over 30% is fundamentally wrong. The infrastructure (bus services, roads, village facilities, doctors, school) simply cannot cope with such a large increase of people.
10. Adding approximately 200 more cars (over 70 houses in Blackmore and 30 in Fingrith Hall lane) in the village of Blackmore (which already suffers from significant parking problems) will create a real danger to pedestrians in the village. The lives of small children and old people will be put in real danger with such a large increase in traffic volumes.
11. There is not sufficient public transport links to the surrounding areas to make this environmentally sound, as the increase in private vehicles will add to the pollution already caused during the development phase.
12. Other more suitable locations (eg areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal.
13. The pieces of land proposed in Blackmore are important wildlife and natural habitats for rare species such as newts and other creatures.
14. The Local Development Plan proposal includes a plan to regularize an unauthorized traveler site on the Chelmsford Road. This will add to further overcrowding in the village and of it's services by the addition of more permanent dwellings.