brentwood.gov.uk

ADD Paragraph 9.176A: "Policy R19 relates to two adjoining sites, HELAA refs 044 (Land off Priests' Lane - former Ursuline Playing Fields, 4.5 Ha) and 178 (Land off Bishop Walk, 0.6 Ha). The large-site planning policies outlined above are only applicable to Site 044 and should not delay a smaller scale housing development on Site 178."

This policy relates to two adjoining sites, HELAA refs 044 (Land off Priests' Lane - former Ursuline Playing Fields, 4.5 Ha) and178 (Land off Bishop Walk, 0.6 Ha). These are both in separate ownership, and circumstances relating to each site are different.

However, these have been merged in the Plan so that the large-site planning policies relevant to site 044 have been applied to the much smaller and entirely separate development of (say) 10 to 12 houses on site 178.

Re policy A (a): A mixture of house sizes, types and affordable housing may well be appropriate when spread across a large development on the 4.5 Ha Ursuline fields, but any development on Site 178 would normally just be classed as a small development, free of such planning restrictions. Development on Site 178 would be a continuation of the existing housing in Bishop Walk, which are 4/5 bed high value houses in large plots, and so it would be more appropriate and important to maintain the "special character of the surrounding area" on this site.

Re policy A (b): This policy relates solely to Site 044. Site 178 is too small for a care home.

Re policy B (a): Site 178 already has direct access off Bishop Walk, a residential Type 4a Minor Access Road with an existing junction to Priest's Lane with 4.5m x 90m sight lines, all in accordance with Essex Highways Standards. As far as the NPPF 2018 is concerned, some traffic impact on the road network is to be expected, and refusal should only be when this is severe. With the limited number of houses proposed on Site 178, the effect would be negligible. Instead, the mitigation measures mooted at paragraph 9.172 relate solely to the new access road that will be required further down Priests' Lane for the large development on Site 044. This only has 45 m forward visibility and so traffic calming measures, such as a raised traffic table at the junction with Glantham's Close, have been suggested.

Re policy B (b): This policy also relates solely to Site 044. Site 178 has never had public access, and in any event the site is too small to make a meaningful contribution. Instead, significant public open space has been proposed for dog-walking and play on the playing fields Site 044.

Re policy B (c): This would require negotiation with third parties and so could result in a ransom situation.

Re policy B (d): The Endeavour School borders Site 044 as well as Site 178 (N.B. The R19 plan on page 335 of the Local Plan is incorrectly drawn). It is understood that the owners of site 044 are willing to provide land as necessary and so this should not be a restriction on Site 178.

Re policy C (a): This policy relates to Site 044. Site 178 lies within Flood Zone 1 (not subject to flooding and therefore a preferred location for development under the NPPF sequential test). Site 044 borders railway land, which is subject to flooding, and being larger than 1 Ha the development there could well have an impact.

Refer to Site Plan on following page:-
Plan to show Site ref 178, Land off Bishop Walk

Modification:

ADD Paragraph 9.176A

"Policy R19 relates to two adjoining sites, HELAA refs 044 (Land off Priests' Lane - former Ursuline Playing Fields, 4.5 Ha) and 178 (Land off Bishop Walk, 0.6 Ha). The large-site planning policies outlined above are only applicable to Site 044 and should not delay a smaller scale housing development on Site 178."


Reason:

It is important that housing development can take place at the earliest opportunity in order to meet the Council's target for year 5 (15 houses on this site in years 2020/2021). Policy R19 is unnecessarily restrictive with regard to Site 178 as it would rely on successful negotiations with third parties in order to meet deadlines. Site 044 is expected to be developed over a longer time-frame than Site 178.

As landowner, I can provide detailed responses in relation to Site 178.