Policy R25: Land North of Woollard Way, Blackmore (page 299)

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 582

Support

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26517

Received: 16/10/2019

Respondent: Cllr Chris Hossack

Representation Summary:

I support this 25% reduction. This will alleviate the pressures on the village and village centre. We must be mindful of the proposed developments adjoining Blackmore in the Epping Forest District that will have a consequential impact on the village centre as occupiers of those properties will undoubtedly use the village centre facilities and these is already huge congestion in the village

Full text:

I support this 25% reduction. This will alleviate the pressures on the village and village centre. We must be mindful of the proposed developments adjoining Blackmore in the Epping Forest District that will have a consequential impact on the village centre as occupiers of those properties will undoubtedly use the village centre facilities and these is already huge congestion in the village

Support

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26522

Received: 21/10/2019

Respondent: Mr John Darragh

Representation Summary:

provided includes affordable housing

Full text:

provided includes affordable housing

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26525

Received: 25/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Cross

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposed reduction in the number of dwellings has been arbitrarily calculated. The proposed reduction has no scientific or evidence based reasoning and does not adequately address or mitigate the significant concerns and objections raised as part of the original LDP (Pre-submission, Regulation 19). The proposed change only reduces the proposed number of dwellings and not the size and extent of the site being developed, so the adverse impacts of the development would not materially reduce.
There are more suitable alternative sites in the borough which are able to absorb the number of dwellings proposed for this site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove site allocations R25 and R26 from the LDP entirely. Any development of this greenfield, agriculturally viable and environmentally beneficial land would be detrimental to the village and natural environment.

Full text:

The proposed reduction in the number of dwellings has been arbitrarily calculated. The proposed reduction has no scientific or evidence based reasoning and does not adequately address or mitigate the significant concerns and objections raised as part of the original LDP (Pre-submission, Regulation 19). The proposed change only reduces the proposed number of dwellings and not the size and extent of the site being developed, so the adverse impacts of the development would not materially reduce.
There are more suitable alternative sites in the borough which are able to absorb the number of dwellings proposed for this site.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26527

Received: 27/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Tom Bennett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The proposed reduction from 40 to 30 does not address concerns about further strains on services and infrastructure within Blackmore, the narrowness of Red Rose Lane (the only access to the site), potential for flooding and undue incursion of green belt land.

New housing developments by Epping Forest DC at Ashling's Farm, Nine Ashes & former Equestrian Centre off Fingrith Hall Lane (~70 homes) haven't been considered, nor have the recent approvals at Red Rose Farm, Spriggs Lane or the pending application for the Travellers site on Chelmsford Road, Blackmore. These will add to the problems outlined above.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 from the LDP

Full text:

The proposed reduction from 40 to 30 does not address concerns about further strains on services and infrastructure within Blackmore, the narrowness of Red Rose Lane (the only access to the site), potential for flooding and undue incursion of green belt land.

New housing developments by Epping Forest DC at Ashling's Farm, Nine Ashes & former Equestrian Centre off Fingrith Hall Lane (~70 homes) haven't been considered, nor have the recent approvals at Red Rose Farm, Spriggs Lane or the pending application for the Travellers site on Chelmsford Road, Blackmore. These will add to the problems outlined above.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26529

Received: 27/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Shirley Slade-Bennett

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The reduction in the number of houses to be built does not fully address my concerns of an increase in the existing overload of services and infrastructure in Blackmore village and its surroundings. This is already exacerbated by new housing developments in nearby communities, who will also use our roads and facilities, and brownfield approvals in Blackmore, none of which are allowed for in the LDP. My original concerns of flooding, loss of greenbelt land and the unsuitability of the narrow red Rose Lane, which is the only access to the site also remain unaltered.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove site R25 from the LDP

Full text:

The reduction in the number of houses to be built does not fully address my concerns of an increase in the existing overload of services and infrastructure in Blackmore village and its surroundings. This is already exacerbated by new housing developments in nearby communities, who will also use our roads and facilities, and brownfield approvals in Blackmore, none of which are allowed for in the LDP. My original concerns of flooding, loss of greenbelt land and the unsuitability of the narrow red Rose Lane, which is the only access to the site also remain unaltered.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26535

Received: 01/11/2019

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Edwards

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This land is greenfield/green belt and should not be built on.

Change suggested by respondent:

For all the reasons stated in March 2019, this site should be withdrawn completely from the LDP. A reduction of 10 houses does not change fundamental problems - in particular the infrastructure of Blackmore Village will not support this scale of development.

Full text:

This land is greenfield/green belt and should not be built on.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26537

Received: 01/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Jakobsson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Please don't build more houses. The village can not cope with another 50 dwellings.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 & R26 from the LDP

Full text:

Despite the reduced number of dwellings this will lead to over- development within the curtain of the village. This will load an already over capacity infrastructure. I am also concerned that such things as Sewers will not be able to cope especially at times of heavy rain. Car parking is already dangerous with in the village and extra vehicles will just exasperate this. There is already many houses in development surrounding the village which will swamp it so please don't build any more. The doctors surgery is operating well over capacity now! Presently it can taker a month to get a GP appointment. The school is full too. Our little lanes can't cope. There is a significant flood risk too. The village already floods during periods of heavy rain. if the R25 & R26 are built on where will the run off go?

Support

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26540

Received: 25/10/2019

Respondent: Chelmsford City Council

Representation Summary:

For relevance of Chelmsford, Policy R25 and R26, located in Blackmore have a reduction in the number of dwellings for these site allocations. From 40 to 30 homes for R25, and 30 to 20 homes for R26. The capacity of Policy R01 (Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation) has increased from 2,700 to 2,770 to take account of the reduction in numbers from the sites identified. CCC continues to support BBC's proposed approach to housing and employment allocations which are unlikely to have any obvious adverse cross-boundary impacts on Chelmsford.
BBC continues to meet its own housing need within its administrative boundaries and has not approached neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate to request other authorities help accommodate any unmet needs. This is supported by CCC.

Change suggested by respondent:

No change proposed.

Full text:

Chelmsford City Council Response to Brentwood Local Plan Addendum of Focussed Changes to Pre-Submission Local Plan, SA and HRA
Chelmsford City Council (CCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the focused changes to Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Regulation 19 Pre-submission Local Plan.
CCC responded to the Regulation 19 Local Plan consultation and as such the comments to this focused review are based solely on the changes highlighted in the consultation document and do not reiterate comments made to the Regulation 19 consultation.
CCC notes the reasons for the focused changes and that the amendments do not alter the Plan's spatial strategy but seek to respond to concerns in specific areas of the Borough by redistributing housing growth.
Section 9 of the Local Plan identifies the locations at which new development will be located. The focused review proposes to alter the housing numbers on a number of sites including
Policy R01, R18, R19, R25 R26, a change totalling 70 homes. For relevance of Chelmsford, Policy R25 and R26, located in Blackmore have a reduction in the number of dwellings for these site allocations. From 40 to 30 homes for R25, and 30 to 20 homes for R26. The capacity of Policy R01 (Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation) has increased from 2,700 to 2,770 to take account of the reduction in numbers from the sites identified. CCC continues to support BBC's proposed approach to housing and employment allocations which are unlikely to have any obvious adverse cross-boundary impacts on Chelmsford.
BBC continues to meet its own housing need within its administrative boundaries and has not approached neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate to request other authorities help accommodate any unmet needs. This is supported by CCC.
CCC has no further comments to make on the additional changes and continues to be supportive of the approach taken in the Local Plan. Therefore, does not raise any objections under soundness or legal compliance.
CCC also gives consent for our details to be passed to the Planning Inspector holding the Examination.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26548

Received: 26/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Evelyn Dickinson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

While we welcome the decision to reduce the number of dwellings proposed for the above two sites we feel this would still put too great a strain on the village facilities. Therefore we strongly support the latest proposal to remove a further 20 houses from the Plan for Blackmore.

Full text:

While we welcome the decision to reduce the number of dwellings proposed for the above two sites we feel this would still put too great a strain on the village facilities. Therefore we strongly support the latest proposal to remove a further 20 houses from the Plan for Blackmore.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26550

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Janis Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Very concerned that Green Belt and rural green spaces are disappearing. This will impact on local health services, parking and safety due to increase in cars, the schools is full, there has already been a lot of new building. Brentwood town centre is affected by transport problems and the high street is changing for the worse.

Full text:

I have tried to find where to give my comments online, but have not been able to do this, so am emailing you with my views
I was born around this area, and lived here all my life, my parents and grandparents had the local grocery store at Dines Corner Hookend. When we were here in the early days, none of the housing estates, really existed, it was all green belt, but over the years have witnessed the villages grown in massive numbers. Unfortunately the local services have not. I tried yesterday to obtain a doctors appointment, but none are available right up to Dec, unless classified as emergency. So even if 50 houses are allowed, that would mean mean at least another 50 patients, but possibly up to 400. Plus again at least another 50 cars. We lost I think two doctors last year, and so far these have not managed to be replaced. Parking in the village for the only shop available is non existent, as the tenants of the flat above the Coop park there, plus hairdressers, and Tea Rooms. Also even though there is a disabled ramp, a person in a wheelchair, or a scooter, would be unable to access the store, due to the fact the ramp is often blocked, and door is impossible to open due to the weight of it. We do have three pubs/restaurants in the village. so dying of thirst would not be an option, and I can also remember when all three public houses, enjoyed a good living, and were always full up with people, but that is not the case now. Also parking on the road, at times is dangerous, as you cannot see past the vehicles to see oncoming traffic. The school is at bursting point as well as the Deal Tree Health Center. I fully understand the need for extra housing, including affordable housing, as the young people who have grown up here, would never be able to afford property in this area. But I have also witnessed the large amount of building that has gone on in the area and surround areas. Gardens being sold off, office space turned into residential flats, it appears to be never ending. This also means that Brentwood itself is becoming gridlocked, with traffic, parking etc. and yet the High Street is disappearing before our eyes, with shops closing unless you need a Charity Shop, A bank or building Society, or a Beauty shop and Barbers and Eateries. Blackmore has always been part of the 5 Parishes, which were very Rural Areas, but no longer, as soon there will not be any Rural green spaces left

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26552

Received: 29/10/2019

Respondent: Mrs Janis Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The area used to be all green belt, but over the years have witnessed the villages grown in massive numbers. Unfortunately the local services have not. The school is full, GP services are not sufficient and the roads are congested and there are parking problems in the village.
Whilst I understand the need for extra housing, including affordable, there has already been a lot of building in the area.
The impact locally and on the high street in Brentwood is clear, gridlocked roads and poor shops. Keep the green spaces.

Change suggested by respondent:

Object to Blackmore proposals

Full text:

I have tried to find where to give my comments online, but have not been able to do this, so am emailing you with my views
I was born around this area, and lived here all my life, my parents and grandparents had the local grocery store at Dines Corner Hookend. When we were here in the early days, none of the housing estates, really existed, it was all green belt, but over the years have witnessed the villages grown in massive numbers. Unfortunately the local services have not. I tried yesterday to obtain a doctors appointment, but none are available right up to Dec, unless classified as emergency. So even if 50 houses are allowed, that would mean mean at least another 50 patients, but possibly up to 400. Plus again at least another 50 cars. We lost I think two doctors last year, and so far these have not managed to be replaced. Parking in the village for the only shop available is non existent, as the tenants of the flat above the Coop park there, plus hairdressers, and Tea Rooms. Also even though there is a disabled ramp, a person in a wheelchair, or a scooter, would be unable to access the store, due to the fact the ramp is often blocked, and door is impossible to open due to the weight of it. We do have three pubs/restaurants in the village. so dying of thirst would not be an option, and I can also remember when all three public houses, enjoyed a good living, and were always full up with people, but that is not the case now. Also parking on the road, at times is dangerous, as you cannot see past the vehicles to see oncoming traffic. The school is at bursting point as well as the Deal Tree Health Center. I fully understand the need for extra housing, including affordable housing, as the young people who have grown up here, would never be able to afford property in this area. But I have also witnessed the large amount of building that has gone on in the area and surround areas. Gardens being sold off, office space turned into residential flats, it appears to be never ending. This also means that Brentwood itself is becoming gridlocked, with traffic, parking etc. and yet the High Street is disappearing before our eyes, with shops closing unless you need a Charity Shop, A bank or building Society, or a Beauty shop and Barbers and Eateries. Blackmore has always been part of the 5 Parishes, which were very Rural Areas, but no longer, as soon there will not be any Rural green spaces left
sincerely Janis Smith

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26555

Received: 05/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Rosalind Rose

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I would still like to register my concerns over the proposed dwellings on site R 25 and R 26 in Blackmore. There has already been approved planning for dwellings at Fingrith Hall Lane and Ashlings Farm although not in the Blackmore parish they will use the limited amenties of Blackmore. At the moment it is very difficult to get an appointment at the doctors and the village school is full and I can't see that there will be any vast improvement in the near future. It is about time the UK put in the infrastructure before building as in many other countries. I do realise that the younger and older population need more affordable housing but as soon as the properties are built they very soon compete for the higher price range in villages such as Blackmore.

Full text:

I would still like to register my concerns over the proposed dwellings on site R 25 and R 26 in Blackmore. There has already been approved planning for dwellings at Fingrith Hall Lane and Ashlings Farm although not in the Blackmore parish they will use the limited amenties of Blackmore. At the moment it is very difficult to get an appointment at the doctors and the village school is full and I can't see that there will be any vast improvement in the near future. It is about time the UK put in the infrastructure before building as in many other countries. I do realise that the younger and older population need more affordable housing but as soon as the properties are built they very soon compete for the higher price range in villages such as Blackmore.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26562

Received: 30/10/2019

Respondent: Mr Kevin Craske

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Reductions in Blackmore Village from 70 to 50 (30%). The statements for justification are i) inconsistency with character, ii) impact on local services, iii) disagreement with settlement hierarchy, iv) Green Belt development and flood risk. In a large village it is difficult to understand how a total of 70 new homes can make too much difference. There are already a large variety in the types of homes in Blackmore so again how can new build be out of character? What can a reduction of 20 homes do to improve the village character that much? It does not make sense and again appears to be NIMBYISM! Does the council think a token gesture will do in this case? The impact on local services of 50 homes is not much different to that from 70 homes. Blackmore has good local services with a rail link to Brentwood and this was part of the reasons given for locating hundreds of homes in West Horndon. Road access is good with easy access to the A414, A12,M25 and M11. It has 3 public houses, 2 village halls, sports and social club, football and cricket pitches and a village shop with a farmers market at weekends. Hardly hard done by and surely it could easily take 70 homes without any impact at all. So this part of the justification does not ring true! What is the basis of the settlement hierarchy? Small population areas tend to provide only low order services such as Post Office and Newsagents, not 3 public houses, 2 village halls etc. This is a ridiculous statement as a justification. West Horndon Village has 1 public house, 1 village hall, no sports and social clubs or cricket pitches etc but is going to have almost 500 extra homes with no improvement in service or facilities. What about our settlement hierarchy? We do not appear to matter to the council and are not as important a village as Blackmore obviously. Again discriminatory, disgusting and very insulting to residents of West Horndon. Where is our value? We pay the same tax to support the council but are obviously second class citizens.

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to make the following comments on the Addendum of Focused changes the pre-submission local plan.
The initial statement that it is proposed to build an additional 70 homes at Dunton Hills Garden Village does not match up with the itemised changes. There are 70 homes being relocated from the Shenfield area and a further 20 homes from Blackmore Village area. That is a total of 90 homes. Where are the other 20 homes going to be located?
My specific comments on each proposal are detailed below;
1) Policy ROI
It appears that the Local Plan is to put all the homes it possibly can into Dunton Hills Garden Village at the expense of our local environment and habitat and flood risk rather than impose such a huge number of 70 homes in Shenfield. Obviously the environment and habitat in an urban area is far more important than green belt! Dunton Hills Garden Village is growing like Topsy and will be Dunton Hills Garden Town!
2) Policy R18
The reduction in the number of homes from 55 to 35 (almost 40%) in the Crescent Drive area is purportedly due to i) inconsistency of character, ii) implications on traffic and safety, iii) Development on an urban open space, iv) environment, habitat and flood impact.
1) I understand that Shenfield is an affluent area so any extra homes are unwelcome and out of character unless they are large and expensive. The need for homes must outweigh this and the council must find a way to build homes where needed, not where residents object on this basis. This is NIMBYISM of the highest order and should NOT be allowed. Come on Brentwood do the right thing by ALL borough residents not just the rich few!!
2) I find Crescent Drive to be a quiet almost traffic free area when I go to the Community Hospital so where is the traffic coming from? It is within 1 mile of the A12 so where is the issue with highway access? This sounds like a made up excuse to give padding to this reduction of home build in the area. It is nonsense.
3) How can a suburban area have an environment and habitat and flood risk which is of more importance than Green Belt? Our area of green belt is under severe risk as it is with the Thames tunnel plan and Brentwood council are making matters worse by adding to this pressure. In a Green Belt borough emphasis should be on urban/suburban new build not on using green belt as an easy option. Why are Shenfield opinions more important than that of West Horndon opinions?
All these justifications appear fatuous to me and this proposed change should be rescinded as the council and planning department appear to be making fools of themselves. These are not serious justifications for a re-think, more like a plan to try and shift as much new build as possible as far away from Brentwood Town as possible. When all recent road improvements are on the A12 corridor and the high speed link on rail is coming to Shenfield surely it makes sense to put as many new homes as possible in that area which is also rich in the settlement hierarchy with good transport links, shops and open areas. So again there in an obvious disconnect with no joined up thinking!
3) Policy R19
There is a proposal reduction in scheduled new build homes from 75 to 45 (40%), curiously exactly the same percentage reduction. The same items are stated as the justification for its reduction. My previous comment on POlicy R18 are also very relevant on this proposal too. I find it discriminatory, disgraceful and highly offensive that Shenfield residents have a greater voice than I appear to. They will now have only 80 homes scheduled for build where as our small village will have hundreds more and a new town on our doorstep. The A128 and A127 are already at capacity and entry and exit from our village is already time consuming and risky. Adding more homes and risk. Still Shenfield will be safer I suppose.
4) Policy R25 & R26
Reductions in Blackmore Village from 70 to 50 (30%). The statements for justification are i) inconsistency with character, ii) impact on local services, iii) disagreement with settlement hierarchy, iv) Green Belt development and flood risk.
1) In a large village it is difficult to understand how a total of 70 new homes can make too much difference. There are already a large variety in the types of homes in Blackmore so again how can new build be out of character? What can a reduction of 20 homes do to improve the village character that much? It does not make sense and again appears to be NIMBYISM! Does the council think a token gesture will do in this case? That is how it appears.
2) The impact on local services of 50 homes is not much different to that from 70 homes. Blackmore has good local services with a rail link to Brentwood and this was part of the reasons given for locating hundreds of homes in West Horndon. Road access is good with easy access to the A414, A12,M25 and M11. It has 3 public houses, 2 village halls, sports and social club, football and cricket pitches and a village shop with a farmers market at weekends. Hardly hard done by and surely it could easily take 70 homes without any impact at all. So this part of the justification does not ring true!
3) What is the basis of the settlement hierarchy? Small population areas tend to provide only low order services such as Post Office and Newsagents, not 3 public houses, 2 village halls etc. This is a ridiculous statement as a justification.
West Horndon Village has 1 public house, 1 village hall, no sports and social clubs or cricket pitches etc but is going to have almost 500 extra homes with no improvement in service or facilities. What about our settlement hierarchy? We do not appear to matter to the council and are not as important a village as Blackmore obviously. Again discriminatory, disgusting and very insulting to residents of West Horndon. Where is our value? We pay the same tax to support the council but are obviously second class citizens.
As a separate issue, why has the number of homes on brownfields sites reduced from 1152 to 1132?. There is no mention of where, when or why! Still, I expect they will be relocated to Dunton Hills Garden Town obviously.
All these proposals appear to token gestures pandering to the affluent areas of Brentwood. They show no joined up thinking, there are no explanations of traffic resolution unless you are in the Shenfield area of course.
In my opinion they are poorly thought out and are simply not justifications but excuses for a bad plan which will be pushed through despite protests from residents and tax payers. It is in a mess still!

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26566

Received: 07/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Steve Mitchell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Views remain the same. Oppose any development on R25 and R26

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 and R26 from the plan

Full text:

Views remain the same. Oppose any development on R25 and R26

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26568

Received: 07/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Mitchell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Views remain the same. Oppose any development on R25 and R26

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 and R26 from the plan

Full text:

Views remain the same. Oppose any development on R25 and R26

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26570

Received: 08/11/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Gunthardt

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Our objections to the proposed development reflected the general views expressed by our Parish Council and those of a large proportion of the Village population.
We feel strongly that the proposed development including the latest revised LDP would negatively impact on the unique character of the Blackmore Village and put undue strain on its already strained infrastucture and services including traffic and parking facilities, access to the local school, lack of adequate medical facilities, flooding etc. We also understand that there are now plans to build a further 70 properties just outside our borough which will cause further strain on the resources and infrastructure of our village. We fully support the efforts and views expressed by our local Parish Council. We trust that you will fully take into account of the views expressed by the residents of our village.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the plan

Full text:

Any way, our objections to the proposed development reflected the general views expressed by our Parish Council and those of a large proportion of the Village population.
We feel strongly that the proposed development including the latest revised LDP would negatively impact on the unique character of the Blackmore Village and put undue strain on its already strained infrastucture and services including traffic and parking facilities, access to the local school, lack of adequate medical facilities, flooding etc.
We also understand that there are now plans to build a further 70 properties just outside our borough which will cause further strain on the resources and infrastructure of our village.
We fully support the efforts and views expressed by our local Parish Council.
We trust that you will fully take into account of the views expressed by the residents of our village.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26575

Received: 08/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Janis Smith

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

rural area development too large
local services overloaded i.e.schools roads, doctors, parking etc
Rural areas need to be preserved that is why you choose to live in the town or the countryside

Change suggested by respondent:

no large rural development in the countryside

Full text:

I was born around this area, and lived here all my life, my parents and grandparents had the local grocery store at Dines Corner Hookend. When we were here in the early days, none of the housing estates, really existed, it was all green belt, but over the years have witnessed the villages grown in massive numbers. Unfortunately the local services have not. I tried yesterday to obtain a doctors appointment, but none are available right up to Dec, unless classified as emergency. So even if 50 houses are allowed, that would mean mean at least another 50 patients, but possibly up to 400. Plus again at least another 50 cars. We lost I think two doctors last year, and so far these have not managed to be replaced. Parking in the village for the only shop available is non existent, as the tenants of the flat above the Coop park there, plus hairdressers, and Tea Rooms. Also even though there is a disabled ramp, a person in a wheelchair, or a scooter, would be unable to access the store, due to the fact the ramp is often blocked, and door is impossible to open due to the weight of it. We do have three pubs/restaurants in the village. so dying of thirst would not be an option, and I can also remember when all three public houses, enjoyed a good living, and were always full up with people, but that is not the case now. Also parking on the road, at times is dangerous, as you cannot see past the vehicles to see oncoming traffic. The school is at bursting point as well as the Deal Tree Health Center. I fully understand the need for extra housing, including affordable housing, as the young people who have grown up here, would never be able to afford property in this area. But I have also witnessed the large amount of building that has gone on in the area and surround areas. Gardens being sold off, office space turned into residential flats, it appears to be never ending. This also means that Brentwood itself is becoming gridlocked, with traffic, parking etc. and yet the High Street is disappearing before our eyes, with shops closing unless you need a Charity Shop, A bank or building Society, or a Beauty shop and Barbers and Eateries. Blackmore has always been part of the 5 Parishes, which were very Rural Areas, but no longer, as soon there will not be any Rural green spaces left
sincerely Janis Smith

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26578

Received: 10/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Anthony Cross

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The village of Blackmore is already going to be adversely impacted by nearby residential developments on Kings Street, Norton Heath Equestrian Centre, Ashland's Farm and potentially on Red Rose Farm amongst others. The impact of none of these sites is considered in the Local Plan. Accordingly, Blackmore is already contributing to the provision of new housing stock. It would be inappropriate to add to this by including sites R25 and R26 in the Local Plan; both should therefore be removed in full.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove site R25 from the Local Plan in full.

Full text:

The continued inappropriate inclusion of site R25 in the Local Plan, fails to acknowledge other nearby residential developments which will adversely impact the village of Blackmore but are not included in the Local Plan. Epping Forest District Council have already granted permission to develop 30 houses on the site of the Norton Heath Equestrian Centre and a further 9 dwellings have recently been proposed + the granting of permission to build 8 more at Ashland's Farm in Hook End + those they have approved and are being built on Kings Street. An application has also been made from private developers to build houses at Red Rose Farm, though being a brownfield site, this is more appropriate than the Woollard Way or Orchard Piece greenfield sites. Ultimately, the village of Blackmore is already going to have to absorb the impact of a significant increase in nearby residential dwellings, beyond that which it is able to cope with. Accordingly, sites R25 and R26 must be removed, in full, from the Local Plan.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26580

Received: 05/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Hugh Rayner

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Too much strain on local infrastructure - schools, medical, doctors waiting times for appointment and could result in increased flooding to village. Parking already impossible in village.
More suitable sites should have been identified. Land is in Green Belt area. No healthcare in Parish, GP surgeries at max capacity. Blackmore school at capacity now. Inadequate roads, parking in village is a nightmare. Utility services would need upgrading and also public transport. Prone to flooding in the village. Loss of ambience of village, such a major expansion would ruin the character of an otherwise beautiful village. Loss of valuable agricultural land.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 and R26 from the plan

Full text:

I confirm my continued objection to the revised LDP in respect of proposed devt in Blackmore As not everyone has been notified the consultation is unsound and I object for the reasons given in my earlier objection in February this year Yours faithfully Hugh Rayner

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26582

Received: 11/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Sexton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I registered my concerns and objections with regard to the above development. My views have not changed and have in fact strengthened in the light of other developments that have arisen since February 2019.
Additionally, potential residents of any development or developments be adequately warned of all the shortcomings and ongoing problems they might experience living in this village which have been raised by the BVHA during this consultation with Brentwood.gov.uk/localplan.

Change suggested by respondent:

remove R25 and R26 from the plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam
I registered my concerns and objections with regard to the above development. My views have not changed and have in fact strengthened in the light of other developments that have arisen since February 2019.
I therefore give my permission for my views expressed last February be shared with whoever is deemed to be involved in the ongoing discussions, with the added concerns that I now state.
That potential residents of any development or developments be adequately warned of all the shortcomings and ongoing problems they might experience living in this village which have been raised by the BVHA during this consultation with Brentwood.gov.uk/localplan.
Sincerely.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26584

Received: 11/11/2019

Respondent: Ms Janet Parris

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I wish to put forward my concerns about the above plan you have for the end of Woollard Way and Orchard Piece, I'm very against these plans, you have approved development in Fingrith Hall Lane of 70 New houses also I hear you have also approved Red Rose Lane also Spriggs Lane surely with the size of Blackmore you cannot expect our village to cope with a further 50 houses . You seem to be going on what you have been told by the government rather than the needs of your ratepayers.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove R25 and R26

Full text:

I wish to put forward my concerns about the above plan you have for the end of Woollard Way and Orchard Piece, I'm very against these plans, you have approved development in Fingrith Hall Lane of 70 New houses also I hear you have also approved Red Rose Lane also Spriggs Lane surely with the size of Blackmore you cannot expect our village to cope with a further 50 houses . You seem to be going on what you have been told by the government rather than the needs of your ratepayers.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26596

Received: 13/11/2019

Respondent: Mr. James Harris

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Greenfield site should not have any houses built

Change suggested by respondent:

Build the houses at Dunton development large site which could accomodate these without a major upheaval which the development at Blackmore will cause the village

Full text:

Greenfield site should not have any houses built

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26602

Received: 13/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Alfred Larney

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We are against the building in Blackmore of 50 houses in Fringrith Hall Lane and 15 dwellings on Rose Farm Site and Spriggs Lane,
At the present time its nearly impossible to drive u Fringrith Hall Road with all the parked cars on a weekday, weekends even worse.
The school cannot take anymore pupils and as for the doctors, its nearly 3 weeks wait. A blood test result usually takes 2 weeks but is now 8.
If we gat anymore building allowed we will turn into a town , losing the words village, you are going about a lovely village being spoilt all the people in the new equestrian site will be coming into Blackmore not Ongar, The green Belt Land should be left as green belt.

Full text:

We are against the building in Blackmore of 50 houses in Fringrith Hall Lane and 15 dwellings on Rose Farm Site and Spriggs Lane,
At the present time its nearly impossible to drive u Fringrith Hall Road with all the parked cars on a weekday, weekends even worse.
The school cannot take anymore pupils and as for the doctors, its nearly 3 weeks wait. A blood test result usually takes 2 weeks but is now 8.
If we gat anymore building allowed we will turn into a town , losing the words village, you are going about a lovely village being spoilt all the people in the new equestrian site will be coming into Blackmore not Ongar, The green Belt Land should be left as green belt.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26608

Received: 13/11/2019

Respondent: Susan Harris

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The 30 houses should be allocated to Dunton

Change suggested by respondent:

Dunton Village has good infrastructure & transport links so could take additional 30 houses
Blackmore has no infrastructure & poor transport links

Full text:

The 30 houses should be allocated to Dunton

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26610

Received: 13/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Diane Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We have already written to ask for our February forms to be passed on to the Inspector. However, we have now received from our Parish Council a request to write once again about the reduced plan on sites R25 and R26 the reduction on these sites from 70 to 50. There isn't the infrastructure to accommodate more large developments. Epping and Ongar Council have already built on the boundary without consultation or thought for how we will deal with sewage surface water, traffic, we ow only have village post office shop. Parking by visitors now is abysmal with a further 15 in Spriggs Lane and Red Rose Lane We cannot cope now. Redrose and Woollard Way are meadows not brownfield.
There was an application for a very small house on a brownfield site on Orchard Piece you pushed that man who was in fact homeless to distraction, you behaved in a manner we never wish to see again it was disgraceful. Now it is OK to build on the field adjacent T26. 20 houses when you dealt with him you knew about R26 and kept quiet. The whole situation has been dealt with so badly we so not feel safe in official hands.
We thank Chris Hossack for speaking to us at last we have a leader who listens. Please pass all our comments to the inspector we are so disgusted the way this LDP plan has been handled.

Full text:

We have already written to ask for our February forms to be passed on to the Inspector. However, we have now received from our Parish Council a request to write once again about the reduced plan on sites R25 and R26 the reduction on these sites from 70 to 50. There isn't the infrastructure to accommodate more large developments. Epping and Ongar Council have already built on the boundary without consultation or thought for how we will deal with sewage surface water, traffic, we ow only have village post office shop. Parking by visitors now is abysmal with a further 15 in Spriggs Lane and Red Rose Lane We cannot cope now. Redrose and Woollard Way are meadows not brownfield.
There was an application for a very small house on a brownfield site on Orchard Piece you pushed that man who was in fact homeless to distraction, you behaved in a manner we never wish to see again it was disgraceful. Now it is OK to build on the field adjacent T26. 20 houses when you dealt with him you knew about R26 and kept quiet. The whole situation has been dealt with so badly we so not feel safe in official hands.
We thank Chris Hossack for speaking to us at last we have a leader who listens. Please pass all our comments to the inspector we are so disgusted the way this LDP plan has been handled.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26612

Received: 13/11/2019

Respondent: Mr William A Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We have already written to ask for our February forms to be passed on to the Inspector. However, we have now received from our Parish Council a request to write once again about the reduced plan on sites R25 and R26 the reduction on these sites from 70 to 50. There isn't the infrastructure to accommodate more large developments. Epping and Ongar Council have already built on the boundary without consultation or thought for how we will deal with sewage surface water, traffic, we ow only have village post office shop. Parking by visitors now is abysmal with a further 15 in Spriggs Lane and Red Rose Lane We cannot cope now. Redrose and Woollard Way are meadows not brownfield.
There was an application for a very small house on a brownfield site on Orchard Piece you pushed that man who was in fact homeless to distraction, you behaved in a manner we never wish to see again it was disgraceful. Now it is OK to build on the field adjacent T26. 20 houses when you dealt with him you knew about R26 and kept quiet. The whole situation has been dealt with so badly we so not feel safe in official hands.
We thank Chris Hossack for speaking to us at last we have a leader who listens. Please pass all our comments to the inspector we are so disgusted the way this LDP plan has been handled.

Full text:

We have already written to ask for our February forms to be passed on to the Inspector. However, we have now received from our Parish Council a request to write once again about the reduced plan on sites R25 and R26 the reduction on these sites from 70 to 50. There isn't the infrastructure to accommodate more large developments. Epping and Ongar Council have already built on the boundary without consultation or thought for how we will deal with sewage surface water, traffic, we ow only have village post office shop. Parking by visitors now is abysmal with a further 15 in Spriggs Lane and Red Rose Lane We cannot cope now. Redrose and Woollard Way are meadows not brownfield.
There was an application for a very small house on a brownfield site on Orchard Piece you pushed that man who was in fact homeless to distraction, you behaved in a manner we never wish to see again it was disgraceful. Now it is OK to build on the field adjacent T26. 20 houses when you dealt with him you knew about R26 and kept quiet. The whole situation has been dealt with so badly we so not feel safe in official hands.
We thank Chris Hossack for speaking to us at last we have a leader who listens. Please pass all our comments to the inspector we are so disgusted the way this LDP plan has been handled.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26614

Received: 11/11/2019

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Morgan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

My previous comments remain strongly my view and the slight decrease in the number of housing will not make much difference and change my mind or reasons that the houses would be best build outside of Blackmore.

Full text:

My previous comments remain strongly my view and the slight decrease in the number of housing will not make much difference and change my mind or reasons that the houses would be best build outside of Blackmore.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26616

Received: 11/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Mark Morgan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

My previous comments made in February and March 2019 remain strongly my view and the small decrease in the number of housing will not make much difference and change my mind or reasons that the houses would be best build outside of Blackmore.
There are much more suitable areas in Brentwood and the Greenbelt in Blackmore with no infrastructure is really not suitable.

Full text:

My previous comments made in February and March 2019 remain strongly my view and the small decrease in the number of housing will not make much difference and change my mind or reasons that the houses would be best build outside of Blackmore.
There are much more suitable areas in Brentwood and the Greenbelt in Blackmore with no infrastructure is really not suitable.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26618

Received: 14/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Timothy Webb

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Object to all document particularly R25 and R26
Not legally compliant as still contravenes Green Belt legislation and national policy; unsound as R25 andR26 changes grossly inadequate as fail to rectify destruction of Green Belt, loss of agricultural land, access issues on Redrose Lane, impact on school and medical facilities, minimal public transport, flood risk.
Failure comply with Duty to Cooperate as local residents and elected representative concerns are disregarded.

Change suggested by respondent:

Proposed changes are superficial/more more radical reform required. Housing demand should be addressed with high density in and around Brentwood Town - blocks of flats and above shops. Executed effectively in Dagenham Heathway.

Full text:

Object to all document particularly R25 and R26
Not legally compliant as still contravenes Green Belt legislation and national policy; unsound as R25 andR26 changes grossly inadequate as fail to rectify destruction of Green Belt, loss of agricultural land, access issues on Redrose Lane, impact on school and medical facilities, minimal public transport, flood risk.
Failure comply with Duty to Cooperate as local residents and elected representative concerns are disregarded.
Proposed changes are superficial/more more radical reform required. Housing demand should be addressed with high density in and around Brentwood Town - blocks of flats and above shops. Executed effectively in Dagenham Heathway.

Object

Addendum of Focussed Changes to the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 26621

Received: 14/11/2019

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Bailey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The reduction in housing numbers does not address concerns of strain on local services and infrastructure but my greatest objection is the intrusion of building on the green belt. Should not build there, build on brownfield sites, Council have already approved development on Red Rose Farm and Spriggs Lane sites. Consultation is poor. The form is daunting, not everyone in the village and parish have been informed.
I do not know where n this form to make my comments but at least I have made my objections known and would reiterate my previous objections.

Full text:

The reduction in housing numbers does not address concerns of strain on local services and infrastructure but my greatest objection is the intrusion of building on the green belt. Should not build there, build on brownfield sites, Council have already approved development on Red Rose Farm and Spriggs Lane sites. Consultation is poor. The form is daunting, not everyone in the village and parish have been informed.
I do not know where n this form to make my comments but at least I have made my objections known and would reiterate my previous objections.