There is no clear strategy for Blackmore and other villages in the north of the borough. Brentwood Borough Council does not appear to have taken into consideration the proposals of neighbouring authorities e.g. Epping Forest District Council is proposing to construct 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane - the residents of these houses will almost certainly use Blackmore as a local shopping place adding both to the traffic along Fingrith Hall Lane and the parking congestion in the centre of Blackmore village. Both policies R25 and R26 are based upon development off Red Rose Lane which according to the plan will be the main vehicular access. In total the plan as it currently stands is to add 70 homes across the two allocations - Red Rose Lane is a narrow lane most of which is not wide enough to allow two cars to pass one another, but given Blackmore's relatively poor public transport connections we can expect an average of at least two additional cars per household and assuming a minimum of two journeys each per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has signs at each end stating that it is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles (see photos embedded below) and yet this will be the access route for all the construction traffic for the two sites. Red Rose Lane has drainage ditches running down either side of it which are important for local drainage and widening the road is not a viable option without further increasing the flood risk for the rest of the village. Please also see further comments below concerning the flood risk within the village. Both of these sites are green belt land. Section 2 in paragraph 2.8 of the plan classes Blackmore as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse rural setting that provide day to day needs for local residents. Brownfield redevelopment opportunities and limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. Development should be appropriate to the rural setting of the area." Adding 70 homes on green belt land in a village with a population of 829 is neither appropriate to the rural setting nor is it brownfield redevelopment. This does not in any way seem to comply with Policy SP01: Sustainable Development which states in paragraph 4.9 "For a scheme to be acceptable, development will be required to make satisfactory arrangements for vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access into the site and for parking and servicing within the site. Any traffic generated by the development should be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated by the transport network and not give rise to unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this one village - this appears to contradict paragraph 8.101. There is also no justification as to why Blackmore, amongst a number of other settlements should be "excluded from the Green Belt" (paragraph 8.90). In addition the village primary school is already fully subscribed and the local doctor's surgery (which is located in Doddinghurst) is very busy and it can take up to two weeks to obtain an appointment. There is nothing within the development plan to mitigate for this. There is very limited parking in the centre of the village both outside the village shop and the two public houses and tea shops, with cars regularly parked along both sides of Fingrith Hall Lane and around Horse Fayre Green and it can be expected that this only will only spread further into the surrounding residential areas and along to the village green with the additional cars that the proposed developments will bring. There does not appear to have been any housing needs survey to demonstrate why Blackmore requires such extensive development. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and building on these and concreting them over will increase the flood risk to the rest of the village. Blackmore lies in a shallow bowl of land at the top of a gentle valley with the River Wid emerging from the south side of The Moat. So, surface water drains from the west, north and east into the village and then around The Moat to become the River Wid. This is ok in normal conditions but when rainfall is extreme the streams and drainage pipes are overwhelmed with flooding of roads which is common and sometimes with danger to homes. There was flooding of roads in the village in June 2016 after heavy rain and I am aware that the home of one of our near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives and roads which increase the speed of run-off of surface water will further increase the risk of overwhelming the drainage systems. This seems to totally contradict policy NE06. There is therefore no indication within the LDP as to how the proposed Policy R25 and R26 developments around Blackmore will be "repaid through significant benefits to the new and existing communities" (paragraph 8.114) - in fact due to the size of the proposals it would seem to be to the detriment of the existing community through the addition traffic, congestion and flood risk that would result from these policies.

There is no clear strategy for Blackmore and other villages in the north of the borough. Brentwood Borough Council does not appear to have taken into consideration the proposals of neighbouring authorities e.g. Epping Forest District Council is proposing to construct 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane - the residents of these houses will almost certainly use Blackmore as a local shopping place adding both to the traffic along Fingrith Hall Lane and the parking congestion in the centre of Blackmore village. Both policies R25 and R26 are based upon development off Red Rose Lane which according to the plan will be the main vehicular access. In total the plan as it currently stands is to add 70 homes across the two allocations - Red Rose Lane is a narrow lane most of which is not wide enough to allow two cars to pass one another, but given Blackmore's relatively poor public transport connections we can expect an average of at least two additional cars per household and assuming a minimum of two journeys each per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has signs at each end stating that it is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles (see photos embedded below) and yet this will be the access route for all the construction traffic for the two sites. Red Rose Lane has drainage ditches running down either side of it which are important for local drainage and widening the road is not a viable option without further increasing the flood risk for the rest of the village. Please also see further comments below concerning the flood risk within the village. Both of these sites are green belt land. Section 2 in paragraph 2.8 of the plan classes Blackmore as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse rural setting that provide day to day needs for local residents. Brownfield redevelopment opportunities and limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. Development should be appropriate to the rural setting of the area." Adding 70 homes on green belt land in a village with a population of 829 is neither appropriate to the rural setting nor is it brownfield redevelopment. This does not in any way seem to comply with Policy SP01: Sustainable Development which states in paragraph 4.9 "For a scheme to be acceptable, development will be required to make satisfactory arrangements for vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access into the site and for parking and servicing within the site. Any traffic generated by the development should be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated by the transport network and not give rise to unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this one village - this appears to contradict paragraph 8.101. There is also no justification as to why Blackmore, amongst a number of other settlements should be "excluded from the Green Belt" (paragraph 8.90). In addition the village primary school is already fully subscribed and the local doctor's surgery (which is located in Doddinghurst) is very busy and it can take up to two weeks to obtain an appointment. There is nothing within the development plan to mitigate for this. There is very limited parking in the centre of the village both outside the village shop and the two public houses and tea shops, with cars regularly parked along both sides of Fingrith Hall Lane and around Horse Fayre Green and it can be expected that this only will only spread further into the surrounding residential areas and along to the village green with the additional cars that the proposed developments will bring. There does not appear to have been any housing needs survey to demonstrate why Blackmore requires such extensive development. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and building on these and concreting them over will increase the flood risk to the rest of the village. Blackmore lies in a shallow bowl of land at the top of a gentle valley with the River Wid emerging from the south side of The Moat. So, surface water drains from the west, north and east into the village and then around The Moat to become the River Wid. This is ok in normal conditions but when rainfall is extreme the streams and drainage pipes are overwhelmed with flooding of roads which is common and sometimes with danger to homes. There was flooding of roads in the village in June 2016 after heavy rain and I am aware that the home of one of our near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives and roads which increase the speed of run-off of surface water will further increase the risk of overwhelming the drainage systems. This seems to totally contradict policy NE06. There is therefore no indication within the LDP as to how the proposed Policy R25 and R26 developments around Blackmore will be "repaid through significant benefits to the new and existing communities" (paragraph 8.114) - in fact due to the size of the proposals it would seem to be to the detriment of the existing community through the addition traffic, congestion and flood risk that would result from these policies.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP. Blackmore Village Heritage Association in cooperation with the local Parish Councils will be producing a local needs plan that will look at the actual needs within the local area for what is already a sustainable community rather than producing a plan that just seeks to help the Borough Council meet its housing quota, and planners should instead refer to this and produce an updated plan in cooperation with the local community.

There is no clear strategy for Blackmore and other villages in the north of the borough. Brentwood Borough Council does not appear to have taken into consideration the proposals of neighbouring authorities e.g. Epping Forest District Council is proposing to construct 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane - the residents of these houses will almost certainly use Blackmore as a local shopping place adding both to the traffic along Fingrith Hall Lane and the parking congestion in the centre of Blackmore village. Both policies R25 and R26 are based upon development off Red Rose Lane which according to the plan will be the main vehicular access. In total the plan as it currently stands is to add 70 homes across the two allocations - Red Rose Lane is a narrow lane most of which is not wide enough to allow two cars to pass one another, but given Blackmore's relatively poor public transport connections we can expect an average of at least two additional cars per household and assuming a minimum of two journeys each per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has signs at each end stating that it is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles (see photos embedded below) and yet this will be the access route for all the construction traffic for the two sites. Red Rose Lane has drainage ditches running down either side of it which are important for local drainage and widening the road is not a viable option without further increasing the flood risk for the rest of the village. Please also see further comments below concerning the flood risk within the village. Both of these sites are green belt land. Section 2 in paragraph 2.8 of the plan classes Blackmore as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse rural setting that provide day to day needs for local residents. Brownfield redevelopment opportunities and limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. Development should be appropriate to the rural setting of the area." Adding 70 homes on green belt land in a village with a population of 829 is neither appropriate to the rural setting nor is it brownfield redevelopment. This does not in any way seem to comply with Policy SP01: Sustainable Development which states in paragraph 4.9 "For a scheme to be acceptable, development will be required to make satisfactory arrangements for vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access into the site and for parking and servicing within the site. Any traffic generated by the development should be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated by the transport network and not give rise to unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this one village - this appears to contradict paragraph 8.101. There is also no justification as to why Blackmore, amongst a number of other settlements should be "excluded from the Green Belt" (paragraph 8.90). In addition the village primary school is already fully subscribed and the local doctor's surgery (which is located in Doddinghurst) is very busy and it can take up to two weeks to obtain an appointment. There is nothing within the development plan to mitigate for this. There is very limited parking in the centre of the village both outside the village shop and the two public houses and tea shops, with cars regularly parked along both sides of Fingrith Hall Lane and around Horse Fayre Green and it can be expected that this only will only spread further into the surrounding residential areas and along to the village green with the additional cars that the proposed developments will bring. There does not appear to have been any housing needs survey to demonstrate why Blackmore requires such extensive development. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and building on these and concreting them over will increase the flood risk to the rest of the village. Blackmore lies in a shallow bowl of land at the top of a gentle valley with the River Wid emerging from the south side of The Moat. So, surface water drains from the west, north and east into the village and then around The Moat to become the River Wid. This is ok in normal conditions but when rainfall is extreme the streams and drainage pipes are overwhelmed with flooding of roads which is common and sometimes with danger to homes. There was flooding of roads in the village in June 2016 after heavy rain and I am aware that the home of one of our near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives and roads which increase the speed of run-off of surface water will further increase the risk of overwhelming the drainage systems. This seems to totally contradict policy NE06. There is therefore no indication within the LDP as to how the proposed Policy R25 and R26 developments around Blackmore will be "repaid through significant benefits to the new and existing communities" (paragraph 8.114) - in fact due to the size of the proposals it would seem to be to the detriment of the existing community through the addition traffic, congestion and flood risk that would result from these policies.

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

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement Hierarchy. There are errors and omissions in the plan. For example, the population of Blackmore is listed as 829. However, the area that this covers (see diagram below) does not cover, amongst others, the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lane or the residents in the Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and the illegal Traveller site.
The populations stated in the plan separately for Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green add up to 2402, however the total population for the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green is actually 3040. The Plan numbers are misleading and therefore invalidate assumptions made in the Plan based on population numbers.
2. Duty to Cooperate. There has been insufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities.
100 metres outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane is the entrance to a development of 30 new (large) houses by Epping Forest District Council. These properties are 1.3 miles from Blackmore village centre and its amenities and more than 5 miles from any other town / village with similar amenities. This will exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed 70 (40 + 30) new properties being proposed for Blackmore on the infrastructure and amenities.
3. Red Rose Lane is a narrow single track road and is not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. Also, along with many other roads in and around the Blackmore area, it is used regularly by walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog-walkers and horse riders. It has no pavements and so the additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users. There are also very few street lights in Blackmore and none in Red Rose Lane which increases the risks.
4. Flood Risk. The Blackmore village centre of sits in a hollow and is prone to flooding. Prior to the major development of the village in the 1970s there were no reports of any significant flooding. Since then there have been a number of occurrences of flooding. In 1986 a major flood occurred where many houses and St Laurence church were flooded and badly damaged. Flooding has occurred numerous times since with the most recent being 3 years ago when several houses on the Green were flooded and many of the surrounding roads (including Red Rose Lane) were impassable.
At St Laurence Church graveyard in Church Street when graves are dug they fill with water immediately and need to be pumped out prior to the burial due to the high water table in the area.
The addition of 70 properties will further reduce the available open land to soak up water and therefore flooding occurrences will increase.. This flood in 2016 along the Blackmore Road caused extensive damage to the pavement which has not yet been repaired.
5. Policy NE06 FLOOD RISK states in 8.52:
Flood risk include risk from all sources of flooding, including from rivers, from rainfall, from rising groundwater, which can overwhelm sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources. Incidences of high rainfall are forecast to increase in intensity as a result of climate change. Developing inappropriately in areas at risk from flooding, can put property and lives at risk; therefore, this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.
Blackmore is not just a high flood RISK area, flooding in Blackmore is actually an ISSUE. Therefore any development in Blackmore is clearly against this policy.
6. Infrastructure Requirements. There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26. However, all amenities and services are already overstretched.
* The electricity, other utilities and in particular the sewerage system are unlikely to be able to cope an additional 70 properties without counting the 30 extra properties in Fingrith Hall road. The sewerage system is at maximum capacity already
* The local primary school is already full - new arrivals in the village are not able to get their children into the school and have to travel to schools in other areas
* Bus services are limited, infrequent and do not run into the evenings
* There is insufficient parking in the village centre causing people to regularly park on double yellow lines and there is no provision for disabled parking.
* The doctors surgery is at capacity and waiting time for appointments are already unacceptable
7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the Borough. There are many options that have been suggested through this process and should have been considered but have not been.
8. A 'Housing Needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included in the LDP, and why other more suitable areas have not been included.
9. The Borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the Borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.
10. There are Brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.
11. Other more suitable locations (e.g. areas around Doddinghurst, urban extensions to Brentwood, increasing the size of the Dunton Hills proposal) which all have better transport links would have been a far better proposal than the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.
12. The proposed sites are important wildlife and natural habitats for many creatures to live undisturbed.
13. Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal traveller site on the Chelmsford Road. The Borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers from the site since they first moved in some years ago. The Council have sat back and watched the site grow without taking any action and must re-visit this. In regularising the site the council is providing open invitation for other travellers to do the same as the council will be seen to be weak, capitulating and an easy target area.
14. Policy SP02 states that new development will be directed towards highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Blackmore is not highly accessible and not along a transit / growth corridor.
Due to the many issues listed above it is clear that the sensible modification would be to remove sites R25 and R26 from the Plan. However, in view of the need to accommodate the need for housing generally, there may be a case for limited development in Blackmore. However, the type and number of dwellings are crucial considerations, as is the impact on the local infrastructure which is currently struggling. The village is prone to flooding, education and health service provision is stretched, on street parking is inadequate, public transport is sparse and electricity supply to parts of the village is unreliable. To render the LDP sound, I suggest the deficiencies in the local infra structure needs to be addressed before any development is allowed. Then, reducing the proposal to one site, limiting the development to no more than 25 dwellings with a mix of 4&5 bedrooms houses, starter homes and 2&3 bedroom retirement bungalows with access/exit as a cul de sac onto Red Rose Lane only.
I wish to participate in the oral part of the EiP To outline my concerns over the plan and articulate why the development in Blackmore asit is currently proposed would be extremely detrimental to the area.

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

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

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

Remove site R26 from plan

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

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

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

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

Remove site R26 from plan

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

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

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

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

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

Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan " [Not supplied].

Unsound :

The principle of residential development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong because Blackmore is an isolated village with minimal services i.e.; doctors already covers four villages and cannot cope, we have to wait two to four weeks for an appointment. Bus services is minimal and everyone will need their own transport. Which the roads won't cope.

There is more suitable locations that have already good transport links without spoiling the village. With putting minimum of 70 houses on greenbelt land.
Please refer to "BVHA Neighbourhood Plan". [Not supplied].

Please refer to "BVHA neighborhood plan ". [Not supplied].

Section 09 R25 , R26 two fields off of Red Rose Lane

Section 08 -Greenbelt flooding
04- Managing growth
Unsound :
BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the greenfield land off Red Rose Lane.
There has been no Housing Needs Survey to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP.
The access off/from Red Rose Lane is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements if development goes ahead.
Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan " [Not supplied].
I support BVHA representation

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.