Object
Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)
Representation ID: 22604
Received: 19/03/2019
Respondent: Mr Philip Mynott
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Central Brentwood Growth Corridor cannot sustain the proposed level of development, and the R16/R17 site conflicts with NPPF paragraph 134.
Fundamental reassessment of the plan.
Regretfully I do not believe that Brentwood Brough Council's Local Plan is sound.
This is on several grounds. Firstly, on the grounds of the Council's strategy choice to concentrate development in the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor (the A12/Elizabeth Line corridor (namely the town centre of Brentwood, Shenfield and Ingatestone), alongside the South Brentwood Growth Corridor. The unsoundness of this Spatial Strategy is caused by the intractable Sustainability problems associated with the former Corridor - see below.
Secondly on the grounds of ineffectiveness - multiple town centre sites cannot, on grounds of practical deliverability, come forward simultaneously and are therefore not deliverable in the timescales proposed.
Thirdly on the grounds of not being consistent with national planning policy - this is particularly relevant to Policy R16 & R17 below, which, In my view, conflicts with NPPF 2018 Green Belt protection paragraph 134, section b): "to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another." Brentwood Council has identified green wedges between Brentwood and Shenfield/Hutton in Key Diagram 3.1, but it arbitrarily fails to defend the existing green wedge between Brentwood and Pligrims Hatch - meaning that the R16 & R17 proposals cause Brentwood and Pilgrims Hatch to merge.