brentwood.gov.uk

Object

Representation ID: 30481

Received: 04/12/2021

Respondent: Mr Colin Holbrook

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The Plan is unsound as not consistent with NPPF in various aspects
Sustainable Development
Under NPPF para 16(a) a plan must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The plan fails this objective when it contains sites (i.e. R25 & R26) that will be subject to, or exacerbate, flooding. This is confirmed in Para 159 which requires developments to be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. There is no evidence to support that this policy requirement can be met as no site assessment has been carried out on any sites in the LDP and certainly not for R25 & R26. This has been specifically pointed out at every stage of the LDP flawed process. To seek to make corrections and after the event condition is poor planning, as such should have been considered and dealt with prior to allocation (i.e. there should be no allocation if there is an issue unless clear evidence that it is a nonissue or can be overcome by a specified method).
Government Inspectors in other locations have required a higher level of sustainability to release Green Belt land where the sites were considered unsustainable, due to "lack of access to sustainable modes of transport" and/ or "reducing private car usage and establishing better public transport". These issues are a very significant problem for R25 & R26 even before any additional development takes place, but has not been addressed by the LOP nor the Inspectors (unlike their counterparts elsewhere in the country).
Green Belt
Altering the boundaries of the existing green belt must be done through new or updated local plans and "exceptional circumstances" are required to justify this. Before green belt boundaries are redrawn, an
authority must demonstrate that it has "examined all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development", including making use of brownfield land, and exploring whether neighbouring authorities can help meet its needs. This can't be demonstrated as BBC has failed to examine other options e.g. : It did not consider including a brownfield site in Blackmore which has subsequently been successfully developed after support from BVHA; it did not explore potential for large development in Epping Forest which sits on the borough borders and directly negatively impacts Blackmore
infrastructure, facilities and services without compromising anything for Epping Forest.
NPPF (para 11) says that the titled balance - i.e. in favour of granting development where there is no up-to-date local plan - is disapplied where there are clear policies to reject. Footnote 7 to para 11 confirms that Green Belt but also "areas at risk of flooding" are some exceptions - R25 and R26 [currently] fall within both. Taking this further, para 11(b) confirms that objectively assessed needs (i.e.
for housing/ housing supply) do not need to be met by strategic policies where protective policies of the NPPF (i.e. as identified in footnote 7) provide a strong reason for restricting the overall scale etc of development or any adverse impacts of meeting housing need in full would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed in the round.
Sites require" exceptional circumstances" to justify Green Belt release. Whilst site unsuitability is not sufficient reason alone to keep it in Green Belt, it is equally true that site suitability for development (housing) is not sufficient reason alone to justify Green Belt release. More is needed. This all comes back to, are there areas where release of the Green Belt is more apt? - eg poorer quality Green Belt land exists, or there is brownfield land within the Green Belt that should be released first etc.