Object

Representation ID: 29919

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Thomas Fahey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

No comments made

Object

Representation ID: 29924

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ceri Fisher

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

After huge local objection from residents the number of houses was reduced from 70 to 50 (this is still too big). Why was this decision reversed. Why have the feelings and right of local people been completely ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 29947

Received: 26/11/2021

Respondent: Mr John Eaton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Why has the Inspector increased the number of houses from 50 to 70. That ignores the point of asking for public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 29954

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Donna Eaton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Development density was reduced from 70 to 50. This is not back at 70, ignoring the point of requesting a public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 29969

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Samantha Dunk

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses were reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC due to high level of concerns by the majority of Blackmore residents. For the Inspector to just increase back to 70 ignores the point of asking for public response to the LDP. This proposal would destroy out village community and out way of life, that is so precious and irreplaceable. The proposal is abhorrent and absolutely not in the best interests of our very special community.

Object

Representation ID: 29971

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Draper

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Brentwood Council reduced the number of houses on the 2 sites in recognition of the detrimental effect it would have on the community and realising belatedly that the infrastructure could not support so many extra residents.
The Inspectors have ignored all evidence and arbitrarily increased the numbers on these 2 sites whilst in the same breath refusing to comment on any site specific issues. Completely unsound and unprofessional.

Object

Representation ID: 29977

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Daniel Dean

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Two sites R25 and R26 should never have been included in the LDP. There are no exceptional reasons for inclusion but many for not.
1. Land is of good farming quality. As demonstrated by active farming in the area.
2. The fields currently provide some protection as a soak away for rainwater and run off. Helping to prevent exacerbation of existing flooding episodes within the village. Building on this land will put the village at risk of increased flooding.
3. Existing limited and already overloaded infrastructure and sewage system will be adversely affected.
4. Rural road network safety compromised by increase in traffic as there is limited work and public transport opportunities.
Therefore the inclusion of these sites does not meet the vision of BBC or the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 29985

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Dimond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Development on R25 and R26 is not a result of local village demand.
Access to R25 and R26 relies on Red Rose Lane which is single vehicle width, no pavements and floods frequently.
R26 and Orchard Piece, access to new development via Orchard Piece is totally unfit for purpose, being a quiet residential cul-de-sac where children often play in the road.
Increase from 'around 50' to 'around 70' is a 40% increase in proposed dwellings. This will have significant detrimental impact on poor infrastructure. There is no clear strategy in the LDP to mitigate this impact.

Object

Representation ID: 29992

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Gillean Driver

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses were reduced from 70 to 50 due to high level of concerns by majority of residents, for the Inspector to increase back to 70 ignores the point of asking for public response.

Object

Representation ID: 29998

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Dillon

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Public response which resulted in the reduction of houses to 50 appears to be ignored/overlooked.

Object

Representation ID: 30003

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Linda Cearns

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Policy R25 30 new homes now increased to 40.
Policy R26 20 new homes now increased to 30.
These extra houses will exacerbate flooding problems in Blackmore village.
As the site is located within a Critical Drainage Area development should minimise and mitigate surface water run off. However, R25 and R26 are immediately uphill from the rest of the village and clearly building a concreted housing development on existing permeable green fields is going to cause more problems and flooding to the village centre, conservation area and church (likely to be made worse by climate change).

Object

Representation ID: 30010

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Coleman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The dwellings in Blackmore were reduced from 70 to 50 by the BBC who are aware of the problem and understand the local issues and constraints.
Following this the Inspectors that increased numbers back to 70 demonstrate their ignorance of the issues and have even refused to investigate specific sites such as those highlighted in MM81.

Object

Representation ID: 30035

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Herring

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Blackmore Village is a remote village, the doctors and schools are at capacity, there is no railway station, poor bus service, very few shops, infrastructure cannot sustain additional population and traffic. Flooding will eventually happen and will get worse if the landscape is interfered with. Wildlife will be impacted. Residents' concerns have not been taken into account and have been ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 30043

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Creffield

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses were reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC due to high level of concerns by majority of Blackmore residents. For the Inspector to just increase back to 70 ignores the point of asking for public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30046

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Tina Cranmer

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

I feel that the land is Green Belt and should not be built on. Blackmore is a small village and feel that the infrastructure would be unable cope with the additional cars and people. The schools would be unable to cope and pollution would increase. There is no benefit to the village there would be no local jobs and no affordable housing for the villagers who have lived here for many years. So please advise what benefits we would have.

Object

Representation ID: 30062

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Butler

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The simplifying of the clause around flooding is very concerning to residents, especially as it is so well documented. We need the real flood risk to be assessed before this LDP is agreed, an overall review is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 30117

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Butler

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

The real flood risk should be assessed before this LDP is agreed it seems this issue has been brushed under the table with the amendments being made to remove discussions on this issue when flooding is a major concern to local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 30123

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Bailey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Any large housing development in this small sustainable village will have a very negative effect on existing strained infrastructure and there does not seem to be a long term strategy in place to rectify this.

Object

Representation ID: 30137

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Alan Bowland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses were reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC due to high level of concerns by majority of Blackmore residents. For the Inspector to just increase back to 70 ignores the point of asking for public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30139

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Hayley Atkins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

I consider the main modification document to be unsound. The allocations of R25 and R26 to build houses will have a significant negative impact to Blackmore village and are as listed below:
- The are that R25 and R26 are situated gets heavily flooded, there have been a number of vehicles that have been caught out and left stranded due to the heavy rainfall that comes from the fields and runs into the road. Building houses here will just make this matter worse.
- Our little village is already heaving with traffic from passers by and builders and people visiting that this will cause even more disruption, air pollution and more dangerous to walk around the village for walkers and dog walkers.
- Our school and doctors surgery is already under pressure with dealing with current patients. Our small primary school is often not taking new pupils as already too many from other villages attend the school. Parking for the school is already heavily congested with parents looking down roads to drop children off to school.
- The houses on R25 and R26 is Green Belt land which would destroy the nature and biodiversity of the area. If these houses are built it will be a great devastation to our village, wildlife and visitors to enjoy this unique village in Essex.

Object

Representation ID: 30143

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Fisher

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The local public were consulted on the R25/R26 developments and the decision was made to listen to the villagers view and reduce the number of houses proposed from 70 to 50. The latest changes have ignored this consultation and reverted back to 70. I do not consider listening, adjusting and then ignoring the villagers views justified.

Object

Representation ID: 30159

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Carol Moulder

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

BBC who are aware of the problem and understand the local issues, eventually reduced the dwellings from 70 to 50. For the Inspectors to increase the numbers back to 70 demonstrates their ignorance of the area and refusal to investigate specific sites. They cite NPPF as their logic but then ignore NPPF in their other comments.

Object

Representation ID: 30164

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Reed

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Redrose lane and other areas of village already prone to flooding and sewerage system at overcapacity. Proposal would increase risk of flooding. Site is within a critical flood area. The increased number of houses proposed increase the risk of flooding to our infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 30166

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Terri Reed

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

The sites are within a critical drainage area. Number of proposed development will increase the number of cars. There is minimal parking in village centre and congestion which is frequently problematic and dangerous. We do not have a parade of shops. We have minimal public transport, so car ownership is the norm. Why would the Council back such unsustainable proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 30167

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Brian Marchant

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

R25 and R26 is Green Belt land, not for development. Our bus service to Brentwood, Ongar and Chelmsford is hourly Monday to Saturday or 2 hourly to Chelmsford. No evening services or Bank Holidays or Sunday services.

Object

Representation ID: 30174

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Fleur Morgan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Initially the houses to be built was decreased to 50 from 70 when Blackmore residents were listened to. Why has the Inspector now increased back to 70 ignoring the public response to LDP. I love where I live and want it to remain a unique and special place to live. I want it to be safe to all and not be a town.

Object

Representation ID: 30184

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Susan Miers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Due to the concerns of the majority of Blackmore residents housing was reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC. For the Inspector to increase the volume back to 70 ignores the point of asking for a public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30190

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Miers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Due to the concerns of the majority of Blackmore residents housing was reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC. For the Inspector to increase the volume back to 70 ignores the point of asking for a public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30200

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Andrew Moulton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The house numbers were reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC due to high levels of concerns by Blackmore residents. Why ask for a public response to the LDP if it is just going to be ignored and the number of houses increased back to 70.

Object

Representation ID: 30211

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Keith Lodge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Blackmore residents have already shown concerns about the number of houses to be built and this should not be ignored or forgotten.