brentwood.gov.uk

Object

Representation ID: 226

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Thurrock Borough Council

1.The Brentwood Preferred Option Policy S1 seeks to protect the Green Belt and local character and focus new developmenton land accessible within existing settlements. Other than a strategic Green Belt development site identified at West Horndon there are no other significant Green Belt boundary changes. The draft local plan strategy is based on strong local support for protection of the Green Belt and technical evidence that suggests there are significant capacity constraints with higher levels of growth having significant impacts on Green Belt, landscape, settlement character and identity, together with congestion and infrastructure capacity issues. Thurrock Council strongly objects to draft plan policies S1 and in particular provision in Policy S2 to accommodate only some of the identified objectively assessed need for housing within Brentwood.
2.Thurrock Council also objects to the Brentwood Local Plan looking to neighbouring authorities to accommodate the remainder of its need. It is considered that Brentwood Council approach is flawed and the Council has not thoroughly tested all the available options to accommodate the housing requirement within Brentwood or within the Strategic Housing Market Area as part of the Duty to Co-operate process. Thurrock Council is not within the Brentwood SHMA area and at this stage does not consider that other options to accommodate Brentwood's dwelling requirement within Brentwood have been fully examined and tested in accordance with government policy and guidance. Therefore the approach to preparation of the local plan is unsound.
3.It is considered that Brentwood Council should undertake a formal Green Belt review as part of the spatial options testing which is subject to further public consultation before the Council progresses the local plan to submission stage.
4.Furthermore considerable elements of the evidence base including the character assessment, infrastructure and transport studies have not been made available during the consultation process and have therefore not been able to be included in any comments at this stage. It is considered this is a major error in the consultation and Duty to cooperate process and that the plan and evidence when available should be subject to further consultation.