brentwood.gov.uk

We object to the policy to deliver only the minimum objectively assessed need for the Borough. Firstly, the objectively assessed need should be a minimum requirement. Secondly, the policy should identify sufficient sites to not only meet, but exceed, this requirement. Finally, we do not consider that the housing trajectory supporting this policy demonstrates sufficient deliveries over either the first five years of the plan period or the entire plan period.
Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing. It expects evidence to be used to ensure that the Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the other policies set out in the NPPF. It expects the identification of key sites which are critical to the delivery of the housing strategy for the Borough over the plan period.
Paragraph 47 goes on to identify the requirement for sufficient specific deliverable sites to be identified to meet five years worth of the housing requirement. It is expected that a buffer of 5% is added to the supply of deliverable sites to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. A greater buffer of 20% is required if there has been a persistent pattern of under-delivery. The NPPG is clear that any backlog in delivery must also be made up within the first five years of the plan, where possible.
Beyond year five, it is expected that developable sites are identified to meet the need for at least a further 5 years, but ideally for a further ten years.
As such, unless the Plan identifies sufficient land to deliver the five year housing land requirement, it will fall foul of NPPF paragraph 47 and cannot be considered sound under NPPF paragraph 182.
The objectively assessed need should be a minimum requirement, in order to satisfy the requirement of NPPF paragraph 47 to boost significantly the supply of housing.
The table included with policy 5.2 summarises how the objectively assed need will be met. This demonstrates only how it will be met, with no contingency or reserve sites to either exceed this need or replace any identified sites which do not deliver.
The windfall allowance is used to meet the need, not provide a contingency. We do not consider that relying on almost 1,000 windfall deliveries is a sound approach. Paragraph 5.44 of the Draft Plan states that the Council are "keen not to be reliant on windfall to meet needs", suggesting agreement with this concern. The Council intend to address this through delivering higher densities which we do not consider to be a robust solution.
Allocations should seek to deliver the highest densities appropriate from the outset, particularly given the Green Belt status of much of the Borough.
Draft policy 7.3 deals with density and sets out a density of 30 dph or higher, other than where the special character of the surrounding area suggests lower densities. It also expects higher densities of 65 dph in town and district centres.
The supporting text to policy 7.3 suggests that the highest densities possible have been assumed in site allocations and the housing trajectory. It states that efficient use of land and development at the highest densities possible to avoid pressure to release more Green Belt is critical to delivery of the Plan.
If the Plan relies on the highest densities possible or appropriate being used for the allocated sites it cannot be a sound approach to include the potential for higher densities as the only contingency in housing numbers.
It does not appear that any non-implementation allowance is included so in order to meet the objectively assessed need every single extant consent, allocation, permitted development and windfall allowance must come forward during the plan period in order to meet the minimum need requirement.
As such, this policy lacks flexibility and cannot be relied upon to be deliverable or effective over the plan period and as such does not satisfy the tests of soundness, as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
We do not consider that the Housing Trajectory which supports this policy accurately underpins the numbers reported in policy 5.2. It does not demonstrate a five year supply, or indeed, sufficient deliveries to meet the Borough need as set out in policy 5.2.
Policy 5.2 sets out a housing requirement of 7,240 new dwellings over the 20 year plan period, equating to 362 dwellings per annum.
Appendix 2 lists deliveries totalling 5,555. This falls well short of the 7,240 housing requirement. This shortfall is partly made up in the housing trajectory by extant permissions, class C2 completions, permitted development allowance and a significant windfall allowance. However, whilst the housing trajectory claims to demonstrate 7,240 deliveries, the totals at the bottom of the trajectory add up to only 7,121 which is below the housing requirement.
There are further discrepancies between the phasing contained in appendix 2 and housing trajectory contained in appendix 3.
The timescales for delivery do not correlate. Appendix 2 gives a "Phasing estimate" for each site but does not state whether this is from adoption of the Plan or the start date of the Plan. These phasing estimates do not always match the deliveries in the housing trajectory. For example, in appendix 2 site 22 is stated as delivering 250 dwellings in 0-5 years. In the housing trajectory deliveries are spread over 6 years starting in 2018 which is 5 years after the start date of the plan and 1 year after the proposed adoption date of Q2 2017 according to the Local Development Scheme. Similarly, sites 20, 21 and 152 are phased for 5-10 years under appendix 2, but deliveries are spread over 10 years. Dunton Hills Garden Village is shown in the trajectory as delivering for 14 years from 2019 to 2033 whereas appendix 2 phases it for 5-15 years.
Paragraph 7.37 is clear that the trajectory and delivery phasing is merely an estimate. "Delivery ultimately depends upon external factors such as finance availability for house builders, mortgage availability for purchasers, and landowner aspirations."
We contend that in order to be considered sound under NPPF paragraph 182, such issues should be resolved and underpinned by robust evidence prior to adoption of the Plan.
The housing trajectory does not demonstrate a five year supply. Assuming 2017-2021 is taken to be the relevant five year time period from adoption, those sites contained within the trajectory, plus extant permissions, class C2 completions, the permitted development allowance, and windfall allowance, total 1,737 dwellings. 200 of these deliveries would be from Dunton Hills Garden Village which we consider highly questionable (see below).
A simple multiplication of the 362 dpa figure by five years equates to 1,810 dwellings, rising to 1,900 dwellings with a 5% buffer or 2,172 dwellings with a 20% buffer. As such, the trajectory clearly does not demonstrate a five year supply.
Furthermore, we question whether the trajectory is deliverable due to the reliance on deliveries from Dunton Hills Garden Village. This strategic allocation is "critical to delivering the Plan's key development objectives" as set out in Policy 6.6 and supporting text and is crucial to the ability to demonstrate a five year supply on adoption of the Plan.
According to the trajectory, Dunton Hills Garden village needs to start delivering housing in 2019, only two years after adoption of the Plan and deliver 200 dwellings in the first five years following adoption. This is considered to be unrealistic given the scale of the site and its location in the Green Belt.
Large strategic sites, particularly those which require significant infrastructure investment, typically take considerably longer to deliver than smaller sites, as set out fully in our response to Policy 7.1.
If deliveries from Dunton Hills Garden Village are excluded or delayed, the housing trajectory falls considerably short of a five year supply.
Failing to meet the objectively assessed needs for the Borough results in the Plan falling foul of paragraphs 47 and 182 of the NPPF. It cannot be positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and therefore cannot be considered sound.