Object

Representation ID: 29970

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: 29972

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Draper

Legally compliant? Not specified

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: 29978

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: 29986

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Dimond

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Sites R25 and R26 should be taken out of the LDP until the issues raised above can be properly considered. A coherent plan for the villages in the north of the borough should be considered to ensure planned sustainable transport.
Flood risk could therefore be assessed before the planning permission stage.
There can be a more in depth, longer lasting review of the Green Belt in the borough. There needs to be a proper housing needs assessment of all the villages, as part of any strategic plan.
If the next LDP is constructed properly and strategically, when the impact of development should be reviewed taking into account impact on poor infrastructure and transport links, as exist in Blackmore village. There is no clear strategy in the current LDP to mitigate this.

Object

Representation ID: 29993

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: 29999

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: 30004

Received: 27/11/2021

Respondent: Ms Linda Cearns

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

To make the proposal to build 70 houses (as per R25 and R26) sound, the development should be re-sited (preferably to a brownfield site) to a location which (a) is not in a Critical Drainage Area (b) has adequate sewerage facilities (c) has an adequate infrastructure regarding schools, health and roads/parking facilities. (d) is near an accessible transport corridor. Blackmore's housing has been increasing with both small developments of 8 houses and one-off houses and it would work better to allow it to continue to grow organically and the removal of Green Belt land which, in this instance, would put the existing village housing in danger.

Object

Representation ID: 30011

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: 30036

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: 30044

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: 30047

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: 30124

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: 30138

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: 30140

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: 30144

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: 30160

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: 30165

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: 30168

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: 30175

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: 30185

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: 30191

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: 30212

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.

Object

Representation ID: 30220

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Jane Lodge

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Not happy with 70 to 50 and ignoring the views of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 30223

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Brenda Leigh

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The proposed developments in Blackmore would fall within a critical drainage area. Run-off from so many new houses with their concrete surrounding, hard surfaces would increase the speed of flooding in the centre of the established village below. May there not be overflowing sewage issues too. We have been told that climate change may cause more frequent storms. Having witnessed the speed of surface water flowing across fields, I have great concerns for our church, a centre of village life, in future years.
I believe that a number of new houses have been erected in recent years, so perhaps a more gradual approach should be adopted in a pastoral area of Green Belt land.

Object

Representation ID: 30243

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Marc Cohen

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

BBC listened and understood the local issues relating to Blackmore and reduced the number of new dwellings from 70 to 50. The inspectors seem to have ignored this and increased the number back to 70. This is a display or either ignorance or laziness that they refuse to investigate specific sites.

Object

Representation ID: 30247

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Clark

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Development in Blackmore is contradicting with:
MM19 – States optimise use of Sustainable Drainage Systems. Fields being built on in an area known to flood risk.
MM27 – States transport impacts should be mitigated. Difficult in a remote village with few public transport links
MM51 – States Conservation areas to be protected. Development in Blackmore will greatly increase the risk of flooding in the Conservation Area.
MM74 – States Protecting and enhancing the natural environment.
MM75 – States ‘so far as possible retain existing trees and hedgerows.
MM78/81 – Flood Risk. R25 and R26 often flood with even average rainfall.

Object

Representation ID: 30249

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Martin Clark

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

MM108 – Increase R26 from 20 to 30 houses. Why?

Object

Representation ID: 30264

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: 30301

Received: 02/12/2021

Respondent: Mrs Janet Jacob

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The houses have been reduced by BBC because of the major concerns of our residents and to raise it back to 70 means that you are just ignoring the response given in respect to the LDP.

Object

Representation ID: 30308

Received: 02/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Steven Jacobs

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Houses have reduced from 70 to 50 due to concerns of Blackmore residents. For the Inspector just to change the goal posts back to 70 totally ignores the public opinion in response to the LDP.