Refer to Blackmore Village Heritage Association neighbourhood plan regarding local housing need. remove R25 and R26 from plan.

Refer to attached form

Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan for local housing need.

Local plan is unsound and totally unsuitable for the village of Blackmore: the facilities and infrastructure of Blackmore is not sustainable for more dwellings, R25 and R26 have to be removed form the plan. Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan for local housing need.

Remove R25 and R26 from plan

R25 and R26
Refer to attached scanned form

Remove R25 and R26 from plan

R25 and R26
Blackmore is already straining to fulfil its needs in providing schooling and doctors, a possible extra 200 people with possibly as many cars would be a great strain on the already busy roads.

A fully evidenced survey of the suitability of these proposed sites is required taking into account the obligations of the local authority to protect green belt and the heritage assets in Blackmore village. Detailed flood risk analysis is required. Assess fully any available or new currently unknown brownfield sites in more suitable locations. Meaningful consultation with neighboring authorities namely Chelmsford to consider the suitability of unmet housing needs being covered with an agreement with other authorities. Evidence and develop a strategic approach for the north of the borough

I object to the inclusion of the sites on Green Belt land referenced Policy R25: Land North of Woollard Way, Blackmore and Policy R26: Land North of Orchard Piece, Blackmore into the Local Plan for the following reasons. Not Positively Prepared: 1. Failure to give an objective assessment of the development and infrastructure requirements. 2. Failure to address the impact on the village with a 27% increase in size has been underestimated in respect of impact on the lives of the occupants of the village and of other residents in close proximity to the development. 3. Failure to mitigate the effects of traffic emissions and mange climate risk by concentrating new developments in existing cities or large town and/or ensuring they are well served by public transport. 4. Failure to fully examine the redevelopment of the brownfield sites identified by the local authority on their Brownfield Land Register Part 1. Failure in their obligation to preserve Green Belt as laid out in the Sustainability Appraisal - 507 Safeguard the Green Belt and protect and enhance valuable landscapes and the natural historic environment. 5. Failure by the local planning authority to provide evidence of any assessment of local housing needs in Blackmore. No Justification: 1. Failure to fulfill its own Statement of Community Involvement that relates to the involvement and engagement of the community and stakeholders in the exercising of its planning functions I do not believe that the local authority has fully demonstrated a willingness to engage with and take note of the opinions of the local community. 2. Failure to evidence a local housing need in Blackmore supporting its inclusion in the Local Plan. Not Effective: 1. Failure as the plan does not provide suitable infrastructure for the proposed new homes and does nothing to make housing affordable for people on average or low incomes. Inconsistent with national policy: 1. Failure to comply with guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework in respect to the construction of new buildings being inappropriate on Green Belt. 2. Failure to conserve the historic environment R25 and R26 have two Grade 11 listed properties on the boundary of the development, Redrose Lane which is proposed as the access point to both development is not suitable as it is a country lane not designed to take large volumes of traffic and is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. 3. Failure to demonstrate that the exceptions as set out in government guidance apply to the sites under consideration in Blackmore 4. Failure to demonstrate a full examination of alternatives on brownfield land/sites prior to the proposal to consider the developments on Land to the North of Woollard Way and Orchard Piece. 5. Failure to comply with the NPPF by setting out strategic policies to deliver the conservation and enhancement of the natural and historic environment, including landscape. 6. Failure to present a 'positive strategy' for the 'conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment', including those heritage assets that are most at risk. Assets should be recognised as being an 'irreplaceable resource' that should be conserved in a 'manner appropriate to their significance', taking account of 'the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits' that conservation can bring, whilst also recognising the positive contribution new development can make to local character and distinctiveness

Take R25 and R26 out of the plan and consider the alternatives.

Policy R25 and R26, Sections 4,8,9 of LDP
Concerns over schools in the area, ie more traffic in and round Blackmore, Doddinghurst and nearby villages. Also Dr's surgery seems difficult to get appointments now, without new housing in the area.
Take R25 and R26 out of the plan and consider the alternatives.

Site R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that Planners should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly sets out our local housing needs as the Blackmore community is already sustainable.

The local schools are struggling to cope already. More houses will increase demand. The local GP services are also struggling to cope and more homes will place even more pressure on them. The current road infrastructure will not be sufficient for more traffic. Flooding is a risk factor in the area and building more houses will aggravate this.

Due to issues I have made clear I believe it is the Council's duty to remove sites R25 and R26 from the LDP such that they do not overwhelm local amenities and services; such that they do not cause further flooding by removing crucial green spaces and such that they are not driving forward with plans that would adversely affect live in the surrounding areas. Blackmore if not an affordable area for young people trying to get on the 'property-ladder': so any attempt to provide affordable housing within that area is counter-intuitive.

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons: 1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. The population of Blackmore is listed as 829, but this doesn't make provision for the residents of Nine Ashes road nor does it cover the Travellers living illegally within the village bounds which Brentwood Council still refuse to take action on - nor the residents living on the Chelmsford road, wo all use local amenities. The total of the separate population figures do not add up to the totaI population figure either- by a margin of around 600 people. Assumptions have been made based on these figures, calling into question the validity of the proposals. 2. Duty to Cooperate. I would say that the development of the 30 huge houses by Epping District council very close to the boundary of Blackmore Parish means that the village amenities are already under pressure- and this has not been accounted for within any of the plans. 3. The single track road named "red Rose Lane" is not suitable for extra traffic without marked improvements to the road - including fixing pot holes and filling ditches on either side. It is also continually used by the public - on foot and on horseback - and is part of at least one major cycle route. There are no walkways so the extra traffic will increase the danger to road users. 4. Flood Risk. The village centre of Blackmore irrigation is almost non-existent- and actually in recent years the continual flooding has actually washed away pavements and seeped into low-lying houses on Church Street. Some of these pavements have yet to be repaired and propose considerable risk to the ageing population in the area. I also know of occasions where freshly dug graves in the churchyard have had to have water pumped out of them. Creating new houses on the proposed sites will dramatically reduce the amount of open land and large plant life able to soak up this water. Blackmore is at continual risk of flooding which makes the proposal unfit for purpose as it will create more of an issue. The council - if it wanted to build further homes in these parishes - would have to invest heavily the irrigation of the entire village to make these plans plausible. 5. Infrastructure The plan makes no provisions for the development of local amenities and infrastructure - and the local school and doctor's surgery are already at capacity­ and wait times are far too long for an increasingly ageing population. The internet connection is appalling, the sewage system is at tipping point, there are frequent power-cuts in the area already (so the board is unlikely to be able to cope with the addition of new properties), Public Transport is almost non-existent in the village (and the 61 bus, which I used for 2 years to get to work in Brentwood, was and continues to be under threat) and parking anywhere is a nightmare - especially on Sundays (church services) and during the yearly firework displays which are organised by the Parish Council. 6. A survey should have been carried out to demonstrate the need for housing - and in particular the need for 'type of housing'. I have already expressed my distaste for Epping Council's development of what I would call 'mansions'. Being 21 years of age, mortgaging a house anywhere in this area seems like a dream to me -one I hope to realise but one I have come to understand will be nearly impossible in my lifetime. 7. There are more suitable locations with better access to larger towns in the area: extensions to Brentwood or possibly increasing the size of the proposal for Dunton Hills would all have better transport links for commuters, on better kept roads. 8. Some of the proposed sites in Blackmore are incredibly vital to the survival of certain types of wildlife in the English countryside -we have seen a huge decline in the hedgehog population countrywide in the last few years and the green sites around Blackmore provide a safe haven for these creatures. 9. I have a particular problem with the regularisation of the Traveller site on Chelmsford Road as detailed in policy HP08. I served on the Parish Council for a year before I moved to Brentwood so I have experienced first-hand the failure of Brentwood Borough Council to exercise its duty to attempt to remove the Travellers from the site. I have sympathy obviously that the Travellers have had children who now attend the local school - but the very fact that they have been able to settle for that long just provides proof that they are no longer 'travelling'. Further prof has been sent to the Council in recent years of the fact that many 'Travellers' at that site actually own property elsewhere, which invalidates their 'Traveller' status. If this site is regularised, Brentwood is opening its doors to further illegal settlements. And on a personal note I feel this is an affront to honest people who are desperately trying to save to purchase a place to call their own legally - especially in an area of such high house/land prices. 10. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is neither of these things.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan

Local Plan is unsound: Blackmore is a small village and development of this size on green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Fingrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore, i.e. doctor, shop, school. None of which can cope now. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would do in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted. Other villages excluded, as well as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chelmsford Road and Spriggs Lane that amount to 20 additional houses. Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for this traffic. It floods and is unpassable every time we have heavy rain. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussion with Epping Council, as they border on the village

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan.

Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for ths traffic. It floods and is unpassable every time we have rain. Blackmore is a small village and development of this size one green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Fingrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore, i.e. doctor, shop, school, none of which can cope now. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussion with Epping Council as they border on the village. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted and other villages excluded. As will as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chemlsford road and Spriggs Lane to amount to 20 additional houses.

Remove the proposed sites field 25 and 26 from local development plan. Consult local people they know how congested and dangerous the roads are winding and very narrow.

1. No trains, bus one an hour everyone must drive. In my col de sack each household has 3, 4, 5 cars. 2. The roads are very narrow and dangerous every month at least one car (a Tesco delivery lorry last week) turned upside down in ditch. 3. Cannot get appointment with doctor surgery. 4. Roads too dangerous for children to cycle. 5. Plenty of space nearer to Brentwood.

The only way you can make the plan acceptable is to find ground which is not Green Belt and not within a conservation area. We are already losing too many of our beautiful places in England and especially Essex.

Refer to attached scanned form

Remove R25 and R26 from LDP. Consult BVHA Neighbourhood Plan for local development plan.

Extra traffic - roads already very busy. Extra population. Lack of supporting infrastructure.

Remove R25 and R26 from LDP. Consult BVHA Neighbourhood Plan for local change.

Lack of infrastructure - school / doctor places. Roads not fit for traffic.

The plan needs to provide the best housing solution without destroying the heritage, charm and character of Blackmore Village. Other developments in the surrounding area need to be taken into consideration before using the greenbelt land. The other more suitable sites should be used for example brownfield sites rather than the arable green belt land. A housing needs survey which would address local needs and not just houses to make up numbers needs to be undertaken. The environmental effects of the village development need to be assessed and taken into consideration. An investigation of how the Village is able to be sustainable with the influx of development and new tenants.
Information that has already been provided needs to be read and taken into account along with the views of the current residents of the village. There should also be an opportunity for all residents to take part and express their views and have them taken into account. Even if they are unable to understand lengthy forms or are unable to communicate their views sue to the complexity of the information or the way it is being presented to them

It is clear the infrastructure of the village would need updating for the size of development and the additional usage. Some f this would be needed in the conservation area to address the issues of flood risk, This would need to be considered before the planning was granted,
I am unable to say whether these modifications would make the plan sound or cost effective as no such evaluations have been made.

Refer to attached scanned form
a) Local Plan has not been positively prepared There are many developments in the area that have been recently completed or are in the construction process. These include, but are not limited to, the development at the end ofThrifts Hall Rod which has in excess of 30 houses already. There is another proposed development near Nine Ashes Road along with a further 9 houses at the end of Spriggs Lane. These developments are and will cause a great strain on the Villages resources and compromise the safety of the area. The people who occupy these homes will be using the school and doctor's surgery, both of which are already struggling with capacity. In the case of the surgery it is already a challenge to get an appointment and the school is already oversubscribed. As well as these issues the surrounding roads are not designed for the extra traffic that the development will bring. The roads in the area are narrow and dangerous.
One example of this is Red Rose Lane which is so narrow in parts that it is only suitable for one car at a time and struggles with the current usage. This will only become more dangerous with extra traffic. This is not a sustainable development that will seriously damage the quality of life of the residents in the Village.

b) Local Plan is not Justified.
I believe that other alternatives have not been taken into account. A Brownfield site in Stondon Massey which is capable of holding 70 houses has been proposed by the village, however, this has not been considered. This site is on offer but there has been a move to destroy the Greenbelt instead.

c) Local Plan is not Effective
There is no clear strategy for the Village and it is under threat of being overwhelmed. Another site in Honeypot lane was withdrawn due to poor access and the fact that it is on the greenbelt. This is also the case with the proposed Blackmore sites which should also be withdrawn for this reason. I passionately feel that this is just to create more housing to fit in with the government requirements and there has not been serious consideration to how this will affect the safety and quality of life of the current residents.

d) Local Plan is not Consistent with National Planning Policy
This proposal is entirely developer led with no plan on how to make this a sustainable proposal. The amount of development planned for the small Village of Blackmore is not justified with the current resources of the area. There has been no workable plan to prove how the Village of Blackmore is supposed to cope with the large influx of extra tenants to the area, which has had a proposal of twice the amount of development of other villages.

The village is unsuitable for several reasons including, but not limited to, flooding, poor access, overcrowding and lack of services in the area. This plan is a farce to cover up for a lack of action taken by the BBC to deal with the perceived housing need.

Question 6
The plan needs to provide the best housing solution without destroying the heritage, charm and character of Blackmore Village. Other developments in the surrounding area need to be taken into consideration before using the greenbelt land. The other more suitable sites should be used for example brownfield sites rather than the arable green belt land. A housing needs survey which would address local needs and not just houses to make up numbers needs to be undertaken. The environmental effects of the village development need to be assessed and taken into consideration. An investigation of how the Village is able to be sustainable with the influx of development and new tenants.
Information that has already been provided needs to be read and taken into account along with the views of the current residents of the village. There should also be an opportunity for all residents to take part and express their views and have them taken into account. Even if they are unable to understand lengthy forms or are unable to communicate their views sue to the complexity of the information or the way it is being presented to them

It is clear the infrastructure of the village would need updating for the size of development and the additional usage. Some f this would be needed in the conservation area to address the issues of flood risk, This would need to be considered before the planning was granted,
I am unable to say whether these modifications would make the plan sound or cost effective as no such evaluations have been made.

As previously stated no attempt has been made to survey plots by Brentwood Borough Council. This should be done before proposing a green belt site. The 70 houses planned for plots R25 and R26 should be re-allocated to an area that has suitable infrastructure capacity to accommodate the additional people and traffic. The 70 houses should be re-allocated to an area tat had an identified housing need. This isn't that area in Blackmore. The argument against development of R25 and R26 were not heard because the extraordinary council meeting in November has gone on for too long. These arguments should have been heard and not just voted through with no discussion.

The Plan is unsound - see reasons below. 1. Site for the entire plan are developer lead. Brentwood haven't even looked at any other sites that haven't been proposed by a developer. 2. Infrastructure completely unsuitable and insufficient for the amount of houses proposed. 3. The schools is already full. Its impossible to get a doctors appointment already at doctors are at capacity. 4. Parking is already at capacity in the village. 5. Flood risk - proposed site is liable to flood. This will also increase the flood risk in the rest of the village. 6. No clear strategy for villages in the north of the borough. 7. The plan has failed to demonstrate that the 70 proposed houses could not be absorbed into other allocated sites. 8. Proposed access route on Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the volume of traffic that will be using. 9. There are other more suitable and sustainable options for example an urban extension to Brentwood. Blackmore is not suitable or sustainable. 10. There hadn't been a housing needs survey to justify why Blackmore has been included in the LDP. 11. Infrastructure continued - no consideration had been given on the impact that development in our neighbouring authority is already planning in Blackmore.

You would need to widen roads, increase the school size, would need another shop, more parking, another GP surgery, Red Rose Lane or Orchard Piece would not be able to cope with any more traffic.

Refer to scanned form attached

As previously stated no attempt has been made to survey plots by Brentwood Borough Council. This should be done before proposing a green belt site. The 70 houses planned for plots R25 and R26 should be re-allocated to an area that has suitable infrastructure capacity to accommodate the additional people and traffic. The 70 houses should be re-allocated to an area tat had an identified housing need. This isn't that area in Blackmore. The argument against development of R25 and R26 were not heard because the extraordinary council meeting in November has gone on for too long. These arguments should have been heard and not just voted through with no discussion.

The Plan is unsound - see reasons below. 1. Site for the entire plan are developer lead. Brentwood haven't even looked at any other sites that haven't been proposed by a developer. 2. Infrastructure completely unsuitable and insufficient for the amount of houses proposed. Schol already full. Impossible to get a doctors appointment already as doctor is over capacity. 3. Parking is already at capacity in the village. 4. Flood risk - proposed site is liable to flood. This will also increase the flood risk in the rest of the village. 5. No clear strategy for villages in the north of the borough. 6. The plan has failed to demonstrate that the 70 proposed houses could not be absorbed into other allocated sites. 7. Proposed access route on Red Rose Lane is completely unsuitable for the volume of traffic that will be using. 8. There are other more suitable and sustainable options for example an urban extension to Brentwood. Blackmore is not suitable or sustainable. 9. There hadn't been a housing needs survey to justify why Blackmore has been included in the LDP. 10. Infrastructure continued - no consideration had been given on the impact that development in our neighbouring authority is already planning in Blackmore.

No development

I do not feel BBC has properly investigated other sites for development which would be suitable and not GREEN BELT. Access to the proposed sites from Red Rose Lane is unsuitable as it is a narrow country lane. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and will exacerbate the flooding problem already in Blackmore. The school is full. It is almost impossible to get a doctors appointment in less than a month. There would be increased traffic along narrow country lanes and what little public transport there is, is always under threat. Blackmore is a small village without the infrastructure to take on such a large increase in population.

BBC has not demonstrated that there are no brownfield sites that are available which should take priority over green belt land off Red Rose Lane. There are other more suitable locations e.g. urban extension to Brentwood - so the locations in Blackmore do not promote sustainable development. The proposed sites are liable to flood and building on this land will also increase the flood risk within a village that can be prone to flooding. The school will not be able to accommodate more children. The doctors surgery can barely cope with the existing population. We can wait four weeks to see a doctor at present.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan.

Local Plan is unsound. Blackmore is a small village and development of this size on Green Belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Firgrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore i.e. doctor, shop, school - none of which can cope now. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would do in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted and other villages excluded, as well as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chelmsford Road, Spriggs Lane that amount to 20 additional houses. Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for this traffic, it floods and is unpassable every time we have heavy rain. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussions with Epping Council, as they border on the village.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan.

Local Plan is unsound. Blackmore is a small village and development on green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses in Fingrith Hall Lane. Under Epping Council, all these homes will be using Blackmore servives, doctors, shop, school. These cannot cope now. Red Rose Lane is not suitable for this amount of traffic. It often floods. There is no clear strategy for the villages in this area. No consultations with Epping Council which border village. There are other urban sites which could be developed. There is als other sites planned for development on Chelmsford Road, Spriggs Lane which amounts to 20 additional homes.

Remove and drastically reduce the number of proposed houses in Blackmore to a maximum of 5 Infrastructure would have to be dramatically improved with improved roads into the Village School places would need to be found without increasing the need to drive to another village or Brentwood thus increasing pollution in the area The single Doctors surgery which supports all 5 parishes is already under immense pressure with waiting times for appointments already standing at up to 3 weeks. A new doctors surgery or funding for more doctors would be required Current transport links for the villages would need to be guaranteed to be sufficient for the aging population

R25 and R26
* There has been no "Housing Needs Survey'' to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the
LDP
* There are more suitable and sustainable locations - e.g. the Urban extension to Brentwood . The locations stated in Blackmore do not promote Sustainable development considering the limited facilities currently available
* Blackmore especially is an isolated village and access is via roads that have not been designed to meet the number of cars let alone the amount of heavy vehicles that would be required to build the number of houses in the current LDP.
* The local schools are running at full capacity therefore the children would have to be schooled outside of the village therefore increasing the traffic and pollution in the area
* Inadequate services available: to provide adequate School places in the Village. Access to Doctors appointments. In fact there is only 1 Doctors surgery covering all 5 Villages which are all being impacted by the LDP. Transport I Bus facilities are hardly adequate
* BBC fails to demonstrate there are other brownfield sites available
* These other Brownfield sites which are available which should take priority over the Greenfield (and Green Belt} land.
* BBC have failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing the housing density on other (Allocated or Brownfield} sites
* Proposed sites in Blackmore are all liable to flooding, therefore building on this land will no doubt increase the probability of flooding in the village with the impact on current residents
* The BBC have failed to consider the impact on Blackmore of the 30 dwellings proposed off Fingrith Hall Lane, with the BBC failing to consult Epping Forest District Council

Remove and drastically reduce the number of proposed houses in Blackmore to a maximum of 5 Infrastructure would have to be dramatically improved with improved roads into the Village School places would need to be found without increasing the need to drive to another village or Brentwood thus increasing pollution in the area The single Doctors surgery which supports all 5 parishes is already under immense pressure with waiting times for appointments already standing at up to 3 weeks. A new doctors surgery or funding for more doctors would be required Current transport links for the villages would need to be guaranteed to be sufficient for the aging population

BBC should investigate other none Green Belt sites for development.

Unsound proposal. Inadequate infrastructure to support development i.e. doctors surgery, road network, drainage etc. There are other brown field sites in the area that could be developed, e.g. Stondon Massey. Changes to Plan: BBC should investigate other none Green Belt sites for development.

Remove R25 and R26 from the LDP

Lack of infrastructure. Increase flood risk. Use of Green Belt inappropriate. Increase of traffic flow.

I agree with the Blackmore Village heritage Association plans.

R25 and R26, Green Belt policy in section 08.
the green Belt was set up to stop villages being changed for ever by over-building. I feel 70 houses is far too many but also feel a smaller number say 20 would be reasonable. The local schools and doctors will be overstretched. There is not enough public transport to sustain this number of houses proposed.
I agree with the Blackmore Village heritage Association plans.

Remove Blackmore from the list of proposed sites.

Unsound because: 1. Access at Redrose Lane unsuitable for traffic. 2. Available brownfield sites should take priority over greenbelt. 3. Blackmore is not equipped to deal with more population on this scale. The school and doctors surgery are already stretched to capacity. 4. There are more suitable / sustainable locations than Blackmore.

Object to 09 [R25 and R26], 04, 08

Extensive infrastructure improvement needed for flood prevention, sewage clearance, road and parking improvements, school crowded, poor road connections along windy narrow country lanes prone to flooding.

Object to R25 and R26. Proper procedures have not been followed resulting in Blackmore suddenly having 96 houses pushed on it after years of being assured that this gem of the Brentwood villages was safe. Regard to other nearby developments has only just been recognised - Top of Fingrith Hall Road, Woolmongers Lane and Spriggs Lane flats; also travellers in Chelmsford Road and Ingatestone Road. Also large mobile home site at Elm Farm.
Extensive infrastructure improvement needed for flood prevention, sewage clearance, road and parking improvements, school crowded, poor road connections along windy narrow country lanes prone to flooding.

Modify the location. There are areas of Essex where houses can be built without causing such disturbance to people or wildlife.

I consider the plan to be unsound as it will ruin the character of a beautiful village. The traffic, noise and disturbance, the visual impact, the strain on schools, doctor surgeries and loss of privacy will have a negative impact on everyone living in and around the village. I feel there are more suitable areas of Essex to build more houses. A sleepy village surrounded by greenbelt / an abundance of wildlife is not the place to cause such a disturbance.