Object

Representation ID: 30529

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Roast

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Proposed change to access through Orchard Piece is unacceptable. A quite but bust cul-de-sac with its own and existing issues of parking and access. Would be made unsafe by this change.

Object

Representation ID: 30539

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Ryan

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: 30547

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Joan Westover

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses were reduced from 70 to 50 - which I oppose to even 50 new homes being built. It would not be classified as a village if we are doing to continue building.

Object

Representation ID: 30561

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Richardson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The whole point of reducing the number of houses was in response to the effect the greater number will have on the historical village of Blackmore. To increase the number of houses to maximise land utilisation completely misses this point.
Access to field R26 via Orchard Piece is undesirable due to the road being a quite cul-de-sac with children playing safely without traffic.
Orchard Piece is a narrow road on which some residents park their cars. If the flow of traffic is increased, they would be forced to park on the front gardens, which will further increase the concrete, reducing water drainage.

Object

Representation ID: 30566

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Warner

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Local borough council after investigation reduced the number of dwellings in Blackmore from 70 to 50. The Inspectors increased the numbers back to 70. They have no knowledge the sites or implications of that. They cite NPPF as their justification in using an National density 'guide' but totally ignore NPPF guidance in other aspects of their comments. Those other guides would preclude any development at all on the sites.

Object

Representation ID: 30569

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Judith Wood

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

R25 and R26 have been increased - total for the two site equaling 70 new homes. Land is higher than the rest of the village increasing the flooding issues. Village is a CDA. Existing infrastructure and services (roads, school places, GP surgery) at capacity. Sites are green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 30570

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Blackmore Village Heritage Association

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Deletion of (b), the 'minimum 25% reserved for locals etc' clause, is pretty obvious.
- However, what did not come to light in the Hearings, is why this clause is there in the first place. As it certainly did not come from village demand in fact it was deemed ridiculous by BVHA when promoted and voted on at the ECM in November 2018.
- No it was introduced to stifle proper debate, ad as BBCs own Barrister put it on 01.02.21 it was embarrasing.
- Again MM1 and MM2 - The 50's have been ignored.
- The above is the true context behind these sites (previously omission sites) suddenly and unexpectedly being included at Reg 18 and it is something that needs to go on record. It has nothing to do with strategic thinking. In fact it is the polar opposite of a proper strategy.
- Access to R26 and R26. Redrose Lane is wholly inadequate for this purpose, narrow, single track lane, no pavements, frequent flooding and a danger to wildlife and humans (walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc). It might not have received protected land status (Sustainability Appraisal refers), but Redrose Lane is inadequate for existing vehicle usage (including lorry restrictions) and certainly should not be threatened with an additional 700 (plus?) vehicle movements per day.
- It is not a defendable boundary look at the number of houses already to the north of Redrose Lane.
- Orchard Piece as an alternative access road (R26): Presumably that has been added in because the above comments have been taken on board but Orchard Piece is a quiet, residential, cul­-de-sac. Again totally unfit for purpose as a new access route.
- Proposed changes to site allocations (back up to around 70 from around 60): the Sustainability Appraisal comments on page 5, 'Community and Wellbeing' is a massive understatement and further evidence of the
lack of understanding of our community. A 20% increase in total dwellings (on top of all the other well documented development going on around Blackmore including EFDC) is not sustainable: (354 + 70 +EFDC housing, plus, plus). In fact, it will destroy the sustainable community that has been built over many decades and it will have a serious detrimental impact on lives, resources, infrastructure etc etc. MM1 and MM2 rules should apply.

Object

Representation ID: 30577

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Alison Ratcliffe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Redrose Lane is a narrow, dangerous, single carriageway. It floods incessantly, cars frequently get stuck in flood water. To consider using it as an access road would be negligent, as well as unsound. Why were the numbers increased on sites R25 and R26? Development of these sites cannot be considered sound.

Object

Representation ID: 30586

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Richardson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

This is an area of critical drainage. Already problems with surface water in village. Notable flooding events in 1987, 2016 and 2018. So why have development at all uphill from village, let alone increase plans from 50 to 70 houses. The infrastructure in the area is already struggling, so why put more on it.

Object

Representation ID: 30594

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Raymond Thompson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses were reduced from 70 to 50 houses due to residents concerns. Fir this to be increased back to 70 disregards the public response which was asked for.

Object

Representation ID: 30601

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Gary Durdant-Pead

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: 30614

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Louise Roast

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

What is the point in consulting with Blackmore residents on the LDP for the Inspector to just increase the number houses back up to 70.

Object

Representation ID: 30616

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rita Tuffey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

To reduce the proposed number of houses to 50, then increase back to 70 does not have the appearance of the public's response being taken into consideration at all.

Object

Representation ID: 30629

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Wilkinson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Housing density was reduced from 70 to 50 by BBC due to the many local residents concern. To arbitrarily increase this back to 70 ignores the point of asking for public response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30639

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Derek Tillet

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

How can the BBC reduce the houses from 70 to 50 due to the concern of the majority of Blackmore residents, then the Inspector just increases back up to 70, that is not listening to the public and not asking for publics response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30642

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ian and Janet Tennet

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Flooding in Blackmore is a problem, removing fields & wildlife habitat is contrary to what government advocates. There were better alternative sites BBC did not investigate thoroughly. We already have 12 homes in Red Rose Lane those should be part of village allocation. The Environment Agency needs to be involved.

Object

Representation ID: 30647

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Finn Thompson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Increasing the number of houses to 70, after reducing them to 50 due to residents concern shows a disregard for public response to the LDP which BBC claimed to encourage and asked for.

Object

Representation ID: 30661

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Frank Tabor

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Increase numbers from 50 to 70 is a 40% increase and they were reduced to lower figure as BBC accepted some of residents views about unsuitability of site.

Object

Representation ID: 30677

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Kyle Pounds

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: 30688

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Julie Pounds

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: 30703

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Robert Strange

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Green Belt protection has been ignored with no evidence of the required exceptional circumstances. R25 & R26 exhibit a lot of the characteristics used in other areas to block development on Green Belt. Other more appropriate development sites and brownfield sites were either removed from the plan (eg Honeypot Lane) or ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 30712

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Diane Smith

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Brentwood Council do what they please, never talk about the consequence of their action. Blackmore is in a dip the water gather. Development has to deal with flooding, school improvement, new drainage system before any discussion take place. There are other sites that could be built on and on a decent system. This is not infill, it's mass destruction

Object

Representation ID: 30719

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Spencer

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

BBC reduced the number of houses to be built from 70 to 50. For the inspector to increase the number back to 70 begs the question why ask the public for a response to the LDP if you are then going to ignore that response?

Object

Representation ID: 30724

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Parris

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

I feel this is not the right area to build that many homes, my reason for saying this is I live here and I know the infrastructure just couldn't cope with that many homes, the houses you are proposing will not include any affordable homes, so our children would have no hope of being able to live here and I thought Brentwood Council assured us that that would not happen. It would not increase local employment, again, I thought Brentwood Council assured us it would. There would be a massive increase in transport which I feel our roads just couldn't cope with all this is apart from the local school not being able to taken any more children. So again everyone would be in their cars on roads that just could not cope.

Object

Representation ID: 30728

Received: 06/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Sirrell

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The sites for development in Blackmore were selected by developers (on Green Belt land) and a full sustainability (and suitability) review needs to be undertaken. Blackmore doesn't meet any of Brentwood Borough Councils strategic tests so why are these sites being considered?

Object

Representation ID: 30734

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Maureen Slimm

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Blackmore is a small settlement which is experiencing episodes of flooding and sewage overflow causing pollution in the area and downstream into Chelmsford. Building on the two green field sites R25 and R26 will increase flooding within the village. Development on this location contradicts with long term climate change objectives

Object

Representation ID: 30742

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Darryl Pounds

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: 30746

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Smart

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Flooding is a massive issue in Blackmore, the removal of these 2 fields will make this worse. Roads are already blocked for hours when it rains. Why has this changed from 50 to 70 houses? Loss of wildlife important to the local area.

Object

Representation ID: 30749

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Faye Osborne

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

BBC reduced the number of houses to be built from 70 to 50. For the inspector to increase the number back to 70 begs the question why ask the public for a response to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30752

Received: 09/12/2021

Respondent: Mr John Randall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Loss of wildlife, increase flood risk, don't believe exceptional circumstance test was carried out with any conviction (otherwise brown field sites would have been identified and included in LDP)