Windfall
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13418
Received: 17/03/2016
Respondent: Mrs Jean Laut
Not if it's green belt.
Not if it's green belt.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14469
Received: 18/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Eric John Webb
I live in Blackmore and greatly appreciate that the current proposals do not have any significant development in this area - which (unsurprisingly) I would entirely support. I am conscious that there will be attempts to meet the total development numbers by some (as yet unidentified) infill and am happy to concede this [infill rather that boundary change] as a realistic if mildly unwelcome way forward.
I would like to make strongly supportive comments on the proposals currently tabled by the Brentwood Borough Council.
The strategic drive to develop in areas with current road links and other transport infrastructure seems eminently sensible - as does the maintenance of the differentiation in the North of the area where there is largely Greenbelt.
Picking brownfield sites is also very sensible.
The choice of the major Greenbelt development to be close to the A13 and A127 with access to exisiting rail stations seems to me very appropriate and a 'least worse' solution which should be agreed.
Keeping the existing village and green belt areas across the rest of the area as far as possible - I also strongly support.
I live in Blackmore and greatly appreciate that the current proposals do not have any significant development in this area - which (unsurprisingly) I would entirely support. I am conscious that there will be attempts to meet the total development numbers by some (as yet unidentified) infill and am happy to concede this [infill rather than boundary change] as a realistic if mildly unwelcome way forward.
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14540
Received: 19/04/2016
Respondent: Mr C Lonergan
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
The Council are placing an unjustified reliance and expectation on the supply of windfall development to meet the Councils OAN for housing. Windfall development relates to the five year supply and should not be confused with plan making where the Council should aim to meet the full objectively assessed need as set out in Paragraph 159 of the NPPF.
Windfall should provide a boost to housing supply and should not be relied upon for delivery when there are suitable, available and achievable sites identified in the SHLAA that would be able to meet the identified demand.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 16127
Received: 16/05/2016
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd
We object to the over reliance upon windfall development (14% of the net homes proposed). Although the NPPF does permit Councils to make an allowance for windfall sites, including in the five year supply, there should be compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. In a local authority area where 89% lies within the Green Belt, such a supply will be a declining source. It is submitted that a key objective of the NPPF is for planning to proactively drive development and make every effort to identify and then meet housing, business and other development needs of the area. This is best achieved by maintaining a supply of genuinely available sites and not relying on windfalls. Where lack of deliverability is a problem the reliance of windfalls will only exacerbate the lack of housing supply, with Councils allocating too little land.
See attached