brentwood.gov.uk

We object to this policy to propose a new settlement to deliver 2,500 dwellings during the plan period to meet a significant proportion the Borough's housing needs. Whilst we do not object to the principle of a new settlement, we do not consider that it should be relied upon to deliver such a significant proportion of the Borough's housing need within the timeframe envisaged.
We consider there to be both generic and site specific constraints to delivery and as such, the site is undeliverable over the timeframe envisaged in the housing trajectory. Delivery of this strategic allocation is crucial to being able to demonstrate and maintain a five year supply in the early Plan period, meaning the Plan fails the tests of soundness as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
It is considered that such a significant reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need, and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations, for example nearby Uttlesford District Council.
A range of factors affect commencement and delivery of strategic sites including the number of builders involved, market demand and supply of sites, the economy, complexity of infrastructure, site conditions, pre-application requirements and developer contribution negotiations.
The Advisory Team for Large Application (ATLAS) produced a Strategic Sites Deliverability Advice Note (August 2014) for East Herts District Council on key infrastructure and site deliverability for emerging strategic sites.
This advises that the evidence base should identify critical/essential infrastructure, engage directly with timing issues, show flexibility in aligning the planning application process and plan preparation, consider a delivery plan, demonstrate contingency planning, clearly identify how, when and by whom masterplanning will be undertaken, and develop flexible site specific policies.
ATLAS further advised that the breadth and depth of evidence needed will vary depending upon when the development is expected to come forward. For delivery within the first five years of the Plan, as is the case for Dunton Hills Garden Village, a high degree of certainty is required.
The evidence base underpinning the Draft Plan does not appear to include any exploration of the developability or deliverability of this strategic site. We consider that such evidence is required in order for deliveries from Dunton Hills Garden Village to be considered robust and included in the trajectory.
We strongly believe that such an exploration would demonstrate that deliveries from this strategic allocation as early as 2019 will be unachievable, based on research and evidence produced by other local authorities.
For example, East Herts District Council commissioned a report by Peter Brett Associates (September 2015) to underpin four strategic sites ranging from 750 to 10,000 dwellings.
This reviewed research undertaken by ATLAS on delivery rates of strategic sites in the East of England between 1980 and 2005 which demonstrated the average time period between application submission and the first build year is about five years. This is from application, not Plan adoption and in some situations planning applications can be submitted ahead of Plan adoption, which could shorten this lag. In the case of Dunton Hills Garden Village an early application is unlikely since it lies within the Green Belt.
The report also found that due to a consolidation of house builders nationally, whilst it may have previously been sensible to assume 5-6 developers operating on a large site at any one time, a more realistic estimate is now 2-4 resulting in annual sales of between 70 and 200 dwellings.
The study estimated for each strategic site in East Herts a range of between 1 and 5 years to produce the Masterplan from Plan adoption and a further 3 to 7 years to submit and secure planning and start on site. For the 10,000 dwelling site, 15 plus years were estimated for the whole process.
Despite finding the Uttlesford Local Plan unsound, the Inspector in that instance found that the housing trajectory was generally sound, including that it did not rely upon completions on the strategic allocation during the first 5-year period.
The Brentwood housing trajectory envisages Dunton Hills Garden Village to start delivering within 2 years of adoption. In light of the above, we do not consider this to be a realistic timeframe. Deliveries from this site in the first five years of the Plan period should be removed from the trajectory and detailed evidence work undertaken to establish developability or deliverability of this strategic site.
There are no circumstances that suggest that Dunton Hills Garden Village can deliver more quickly than the five years recommended by the above research. Indeed, the evidence available suggests that the time lag may in fact be slower.
Much of the detail of policy 7.1 has been deferred to the Masterplan to form part of the Brentwood Local Development Plan. No timetable is given for the adoption of this Masterplan and no draft has yet been produced. It is assumed that it will follow adoption of the Local Plan, which is not anticipated until 2017.
A planning application cannot be approved ahead of adoption of the Plan, which could expedite delivery, since the site is within the Green Belt. The Green Belt boundary will have to be amended before it could be considered appropriate development and a developer is unlikely to invest in the breadth of site survey and evidence work required for a site of this scale on a Green Belt site prior to allocation.
Even following grant of planning permission, a scheme of this scale will have significant pre-implementation conditions and issues to be resolved at reserved matters stage, hence the average 5 year time lag to delivery.
In addition to the normal delivery problems associated with large sites, Dunton Hills Garden Village also faces unique site specific delivery constraints, including infrastructure constraints, local opposition, cross-border issues with adjacent Basildon Council and the Lower Thames Crossing link road.

The scant evidence base already identifies a number of constraints to the site for example the historic assets of the settlement of Dunton Village, the medieval field patterns in the area, medieval buildings and long-distance views towards St Mary the Virgin Church in Little Burstead.
It cannot be assumed that a more thorough exploration of the site will not uncover additional constraints.
A site of this scale will require significant infrastructure investment prior to delivery and whether the site is deliverable in highways terms has not been established. The consultation document states that the A127 is constrained and further work will need to be undertaken with the Highways Authority and Highways England to address capacity and traffic flow. The key diagram suggests that an enhanced junction will be required onto the A127.
The necessary infrastructure would have to be secured via a S106 agreement which is likely to be a complex legal document. Even for small schemes these typically take in excess of six months to a year to complete and a strategic scale site such as this could easily take considerably longer. This is exacerbated if they are in multiple ownership where complex legal agreements are required.
Given that a local action group, "Residents Against Inappropriate Development", already exists and are encouraging objection, it can be assumed that the strategic allocation will encounter considerable objection throughout the process. Whilst the existence of opposition groups will not necessarily prevent allocation and development since it will be for the Inspector to determine whether it represents sustainable development, it would be naïve to assume that such groups cannot delay delivery, even post allocation.
The proposed site for Dunton Hills Garden Village is adjacent to the Borough boundary with Basildon. Basildon are also proposing West Basildon Urban Extension; a mixed use development site against this same boundary through their Local Plan 2014 - 2034 under draft policy H10. This is to provide around 1,000 homes, a residential care/nursing home, and at least 5.5ha of employment land. It also proposes safeguarded land for the provision of around a further 1,350 homes, a residential care and/or nursing home and a 2fe primary school and a secondary school beyond the current plan period.
A Memorandum of Understanding between the two councils was signed to investigate whether land known as "Dunton Garden Suburb" had potential of meeting some of the development needs of both Councils through a cross boundary development opportunity, and a joint consultation was undertaken. However, this was effective for only 15 months and expired in February 2016.
In the absence of any formal agreement between the two councils, there is a lack of clarity as to how these two proposals are to work in conjunction with each other.
The Brentwood Plan states at paragraph 7.9 as follows:
Work will continue with adjoining authorities and other bodies as part of the Duty to Cooperate. This includes consideration of growth along the wider A127 Corridor as well as proposed development to the Brentwood border in Basildon.
Whilst this acknowledges the need to co-operate with neighbouring authorities, it gives no assurance that the duty has been complied with and does not suggest that the two sites will be brought forward together.
The Basildon Plan states at paragraph 11.88 as follows:
In January 2015, the Council consulted on a proposal jointly with Brentwood Borough Council which considered whether there was an opportunity to use land either side of the shared administrative boundary in this location to meet development needs for both local planning authorities, particularly housing needs. This proposal, termed 'Dunton Garden Suburb' was based on a high level appraisal of a community which could provide between 4,000 and 6,000 homes, a gypsy and traveller site, commercial buildings and supporting infrastructure. Given the variety of issues raised in the consultation, which are set out in the Dunton Garden Suburb Statement of Consultation (2015) it has not been possible for either Council to resolve this proposal in isolation to their Local Plans, but the exercise has served a purpose to determine if a cross boundary development could be an option in this location.
This suggests that cross boundary development is not an option in this location, supported by the fact that no agreement in place.
It is therefore apparent that the Brentwood allocation is intended to be a new settlement, whilst the Basildon allocation is intended to be an urban extension with no assessment of the impact each allocation will have on the other.
Paragraph 178 of the NPPF requires joint working to be "diligently undertaken" for "the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities".
This cooperation does not apply only to joint working in order to meet development requirements which cannot be met within boundaries, but in all aspects of plan making which have cross boundary impacts.
Paragraph 180 requires local planning authorities to take account of different geographic areas including travel to work patterns.
Crucially, paragraph 181 states that local planning authorities are expected "to demonstrate evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plans are submitted for examination." It goes on to explain that this should be a continuous process and result in plans which support current and projected levels of development.
This demonstrate a lack of lack of co-operation between the Councils. This raises serious concerns as to whether either can demonstrate compliance with the Duty to Co-operate and at the vey least indicates a lack of joined up thinking and due regard to how the two sites would operate alongside each other.
Far from being compatible, there are significant conflicts between Basildon's draft policy H10 and Brentwood policy 7.1.
Firstly, the Basildon allocation is proposed as an urban extension to Basildon, making use of services in Basildon. The Brentwood allocation is for a new settlement, which will be directly adjacent to this urban extension. Neither authority have addressed how these two allocations will operate alongside each other.
The Basildon policy proposes landscaped buffers should be provided to the northern and western boundaries of the sites, with the western landscaping being specifically in order to limit harm to the open landscape to the west.
The Brentwood policy proposes to locate a new settlement on this landscape.
The Basildon policy requires the design and layout of development to respect the historic assets of the settlement of Dunton Village, the medieval field patterns in the area, medieval buildings and long-distance views towards St Mary the Virgin Church in Little Burstead.
The Brentwood policy proposes to locate a new settlement in this area that Basildon seeks to preserve.
Land to the west of Basildon, as identified on the Policies Map with the notation H10b, will be safeguarded for the provision of around a further 1,350 high quality homes developed at a density of 30dph, a residential care and/or nursing home and a 2fe primary school beyond the current plan period. Additionally, land within this location must be reserved for the provision of a secondary school, as specified by the Essex County Council School Place Commissioning Service, and this land must be made available for the provision of a secondary school should the need arise, either during this plan period or the next.
The Brentwood policy also provides for a secondary school and there is no information to indicate whether these are likely to be linked, combined or simply just be geographically close to each other.
A final site specific issue facing Dunton Hills Garden Village is the potential for the site to be required to provide a new road from a new Thames Crossing to the M25.
Highways England are currently consulting on the Lower Thames Crossing, due to close on 24th March 2016. Two potential crossing locations and three potential route options have been identified north of the river in Essex and two south of the river in Kent.
One of the three north route options proposes a new road from the crossing following an easterly line via the existing A127 to the M25 at junction 29. This transects the proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village site diagonally from south east to north west. It would comprise a 70mph dual carriageway with separate northbound and southbound carriageways and would include upgrading of the A127/A1289 junction across the site.
If this new road were to proceed, it would result in loss of a significant proportion of the site, which may not leave enough land to deliver the 2,500 dwellings proposed. There would be significant problems with achieving linkages between the two halves of the site, if it were split by the new road. Furthermore, it could prevent delivery of the site entirely as it would present significant noise, air quality and vibration issues which could make development of the remainder of the site unsuitable.
The options are still open for consultation and no evidence that Brentwood Borough Council have consulted Highways England in regard to this and implications for the delivery of policy 7.1 has been presented.
The Basildon draft policy H10 includes a provision to have regard to the route, impacts and implications of the Lower Thames Crossing, should Route Option C be pursued by the Government during the plan period. The supporting text states that a decision on the preferred route will be taken in 2016 by the Secretary of State for Transport and if this route is selected there are potential highways and land use implications for this site which will need to be considered in the preparation of the masterplan/development brief for this site.
We contend that at the very least, the Brentwood draft policy 7.1 should contain a similar provision, in order to maintain flexibility over the plan period.
Paragraph 182 of the NPPF requires plans to be effective, in order to be considered sound. In order to be effective "the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities".
Finally, whilst the policy is clear that the new settlement is intended to meet the needs of Brentwood Borough, we seriously question whether this will occur in reality. Being physically attached to Basildon, Dunton Hills Garden Village is likely to integrate more with Basildon Borough than Brentwood and serve the housing needs of Basildon as opposed to Brentwood.
Brentwood Borough is dominated by its largest settlement Brentwood and suburbs Hutton, Shenfield, Pilgrim's Hatch, Warley and Brook Street; 70% of the population live in Brentwood town.
Whilst the Borough has been split into four sectors for the purpose of the spatial strategy, the evidence base does not show where housing need arises across the Borough in relation to these areas. However, it can be reasonably assumed that the need arises primarily from Brentwood Town. This is evidenced by the existing jobs and employment areas being focused on Brentwood.
As such, locating the new settlement to the edge of the Borough is not providing the need where it arises. Better transport linkages and closer employment opportunities exist in the neighbouring Borough, and as such, it is likely that market forces will result in Dunton Hills Garden Village serving the needs arising from Basildon, as opposed to Brentwood, despite is contributing to the Brentwood 'numbers'.
This is contrary to Strategic Objective 3, which is to plan for housing to meet the needs "of the Borough's population". It is also contrary to paragraph 47 of the NPPF which requires local plans to meet the full objectively assessed needs "in the housing market area". The Draft Local Plan is clear at paragraph 5.36 that Brentwood Borough is self-contained and occupies its own housing market area.
As demonstrated above, policy 7.1 is not positively prepared, justified, effective or consistent with national policy. It is not based on effective joint working and therefore does not satisfy the duty to co-operate. The delivery of policy 7.1 over the plan period is questionable; insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate that all 2,500 dwellings can be delivered over the plan period. Furthermore, the potential Lower Thames Crossing route raises serious additional questions about deliverability of the site at all.
Given that policy 7.1 is relied upon heavily in delivering "a significant proportion" of the housing needs of the Borough and deliveries from this site are crucial to the ability to demonstrate a five year supply in the early years of the Plan period, unsoundness of this policy is sufficient to render the entire Plan unsound.
As such the Draft Plan is not justified, as required by paragraph 182 of the NPPF. It is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. Reasonable alternatives exist, namely the allocation of more, smaller sites for housing adjacent to the Main Town, Village Service Centres and Larger Villages.