Removal of proposed developments R25 and R26 from the plan and reallocation of the 70 dwellings to more suitable brownfield sites in the borough.

Inclusion of site allocations R25 and R26 in the LDP are inappropriate, unsound and not compliant with legal requirements on the following grounds: failure to prove that more suitable (brownfield) sites do not exist in the borough, or that other site allocations couldn't absorb the 70 dwellings proposed; inadequate consultation with Epping Forest District Council and failure to properly consider the impact of other nearby developments on Blackmore; failure to recognise the increased flood risk resulting from the proposed development; adverse impact on roads, noise levels and safety of existing road users from increased traffic; inadequate local amenities/services; other considerations per full representation.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan

1. This joint representation is made on behalf of:
1.1.The Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green Parish Council ('the Parish Council');
and
1.2.The Blackmore Village Heritage Association ('BVHA')
Introduction
2. The Parish Council is a statutory consultee and represents 350 households in Blackmore village (population of only 943) included in a total population of 2,561 within the wider Parish with its three distinct separate settlements. This figure does not include the many households in neighbouring villages who rely on Blackmore's facilities.
3. BVHA is an unincorporated, not for profit, organisation and has in excess of 150 active members but its newsletters are distributed to over 1,000 households.
4. Both the Parish Council and BVHA strongly oppose the proposed allocation of Sites R25 (Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore) and R26 (Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore) for housing development. The proposed allocation is for "around 40 new homes" at R25 and for "around 30 new homes" at R26.
5. They say that the proposed allocations R25 and R26 are contrary to both National and Local Policies.

6. In simple terms the Parish Council's and BVHA's case is as follows:
6.1.Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing need cannot be met on existing previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites.
6.2.Without prejudice to the above contention, if no previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites exist, that Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate there are no or insufficient previously developed sites available outside the existing urban areas.
6.3.In any event, there are greenfield sites available (for example adjoining existing urban areas) in preferable and more sustainable locations.
6.4.Moreover, R25 and R26 are inherently unsuitable developments because of (1) inadequate access, (2) flooding, (3) it will result in disproportionate increase in the housing stock, and, (4) the development would not be sustainable.
7. The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the proposed allocation of Blackmore as a Category 3 settlement within the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy (see pages 21-25 of the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan).
8. Accordingly, the Parish Council and BVHA submit that the Local Plan, with proposed allocations R25 and R26 and the allocation of Blackmore as a "larger village", is unsound in that it has not been positively prepared, is not justified, is not effective nor consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019 edition)('the NPPF').
Background
9. Blackmore is currently a village of approximately 350 dwellings which are home to 943 people (according to the Electoral Register). The proposal to add "around 70 homes" will add approximately 25% to the existing village housing stock. The proportionate increase to the village population would likely be greater by virtue of the number of current dwellings being occupied by two or less villagers. Outside of the LDP, housing stock is also increasing through normal planning processes both within Brentwood Borough Council and our neighbouring Epping Forest Council which will impact upon Blackmore village.
10.Blackmore is a picturesque village and surrounded by countryside. The Village Green has ponds at its eastern end. There is a village shop including post office, Primary School, two village halls, a sports and social club, tennis courts, football and cricket pitches, and a flood-lit Multi-Use Games Arena. All of these facilities are at capacity use. The village has three pubs: The Prince Albert, The Bull, and The Leather Bottle. In addition to the Anglican parish Church there is a Baptist Church in the village. However, Blackmore has a very limited bus service and is thus remote. It is over 6 miles from the centre of Brentwood and thus the villagers of Blackmore are reliant on the motor car.
11.The village School is at capacity and local residents are having to send children to neighbouring schools. There is limited scope for expansion. It is socially undesirable for some village children to be able to attend the village school and others to be "shipped out". This social harm (i.e. lack of cohesion) would be exacerbated if more resident village children had to be "shipped out" to another school.
12.In respect of employment opportunities within Blackmore these are limited and, of those of working age nearly all, if not all, commute out of the village. That commute takes place, if not exclusively, almost exclusively by private motor car. Such further evidences that Blackmore is an unsustainable location for new development.
13.Both R25 and R26 are on the Northern Boundary of the village of Blackmore. Both are bordered (to the north) by Redrose Lane, a rare extant example of a "plague detour route". Redrose Lane is narrow and with limited passing space for two motor cars. Vehicles larger than a car (i.e. Transit van and above) cannot pass without one, or the other, stopping (see Appendix One). Development of 70 dwellings would undoubtedly result in a significant number of vehicular movements - in the order of 600 to 700 per day - and, without suitable improvements (which would erode the character of Redrose Lane), cause harm.
14.Both R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. Both are on land classified as "very good" agricultural land. Both sites have ecological value and, more importantly, local residents have reported sightings of bats, owls and newts at, or in the vicinity of, R25 and R26 (See Appendix Two).
15.Whilst the Environmental Agency classifies both sites within Flood Zone 1, both R25 and R26 have flooded historically - and both have an identified flood risk (see Appendix Three).
16.The BVHA undertook a survey in July 2018 of local residents and visitors to the Village. The BVHA survey confirms that residents are opposed to the proposed allocation of R25 and R26. Of the responses received from village residents, over
300, 98% were strongly opposed to the allocation of sites R25 and R26. It should be noted that the response numbers (over 300 adult residents in the village) was extremely good and evidences the strength of local feeling. It also outlines the engagement of the local Community.
Issues concerning Consultation and Consistency
17.It is a maxim that "good planning is consistent planning".
18.The Current Local Plan (the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan) dates to 2005 and tightly controls development in the Green Belt. Thus, development on R25 and R26 is contrary to the current Local Plan policies absent "very special circumstances".
19.In a 2014 site assessment document, which was and is part of the current emerging local plan process, sites R25 and R26 were discounted as they did not meet the (then) draft Local Plan spatial strategy.
20.It is not clear why this assessment has changed - indeed, the constraints surrounding site R25 and R26 remain unchanged.
21.More recently, in the Council's (Regulation 18) 2016 draft Local Plan, it was stated that "No amendment is proposed to the Green Belt boundaries surrounding larger villages [Blackmore is defined as a larger village] in order to retain the character of the Borough in line with the spatial strategy" (para 5.33). That spatial strategy seeking, insofar as it was necessary to do so, "limited release of Green Belt land for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self- sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries". So even though Brentwood Borough Council had identified a potential need for release of Green Belt land, no suitable land was identified in Blackmore.
22.There has therefore been a significant shift of policy; namely from a position of no development at R25 and R26 to now seeking to allocate these sites for residential development. The Parish Council and BVHA say that the change in position is inconsistent and wrong for reasons more fully set out below.
23.The Parish Council and BVHA also wish to record that the Council's planning Team, represented by a Strategic Director and three other Senior Officers, confirmed at a public meeting on 31 January 2019 that Blackmore's allocation was a result of property developers promoting the development of land on which their companies held options. The Parish Council and BVHA take the view that, not only would the proposed allocation of R25 and R26 appear to be "developer-led" rather than plan- led, it shows a lack of thorough and appropriate research, and understanding of the unique character and circumstances of Blackmore. The Parish Council and BVHA further take the view that developer pressure is not a good and sufficient reason for Brentwood Borough Council to abdicate its duty to promote a sound, and consistent, Development Plan.
Evidence Base
24.Paragraph 31 NPPF provides that the preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.
25.Part of the evidence is the "Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report - January 2019" ('the SA'). The SA tells us that a number of sustainability 'topics' inform the framework for assessing the sustainability of the site. Flooding is one of those topics (see Table 3.1 of the SA).
26.Risk of flooding is important to any sustainability appraisal not only because the NPPF and emerging policy NE06 seek to direct development away from areas of highest risk of flooding but also because flooding can put lives and property at risk. It is therefore surprising that, for all bar 21 potential sites, the SA does not consider flood risk in assessing sustainability.
27.The Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment does assess risk however and identifies a medium risk of surface water flooding for Redrose Lane (Table A4b) with Site R26 being potentially vulnerable to climate change and with a 1 in 100 annual probability of surface water flooding (Table A6b). The findings appear at odds with the fact that Sites R25 and R26 are lower than Redrose Lane and thus, one may expect, may be more vulnerable to flooding than higher land (i.e. Redrose Lane). Indeed, these sites have consistently flooded as evidenced by the photographs in Appendix Two.
28.There are, of course, documents supporting housing need. However, there is no evidence of local housing need for Blackmore, or any other villages. Whilst the Parish Council and BVHA accept that there may be some demand for housing any such demand should be properly evidenced with any housing allocation proportionate and ensuring that houses are being built in the right places.
Sustainable Development
29.It is a core planning principle that plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (para 16(a) NPPF). Paragraph 8 NPPF outlines three objectives that the planning system should strive to meet.
30.The proposed allocation of sites R25 and R26 meets none of these objectives in that: 30.1. Economic objective - any contribution arising from the construction of new dwellings will be short-lived. There are no, or extremely limited, employment opportunities within Blackmore and the likelihood of new residents driving a demand for new services within the village would appear, at best, limited. In
short, any economic benefits are short-term.
30.2. Social objective - services in Blackmore are limited and the primary school
is at capacity sending additional village children to school elsewhere will further
erode social cohesion.
30.3. Environmental objective - occupiers of sites R25 and R26 would
undoubtedly be reliant on private motor cars. The sites are at risk of flooding (surface water at least) and require the release of high-grade agricultural land in the Green Belt. Redrose Lane is narrow and infrastructure works would be required to make necessary improvements which would harm the character of this area but may also result in the loss of historic hedges and important habitats.
31.There are other sites which are in far more sustainable locations which should be allocated in preference. Indeed, the SA identifies a number of sites (n.b. no scoring for flood risk) with better scores than sites R25 and R26, good examples being in Shenfield, Mountnessing, Pilgrims Hatch, Ingatestone and Brentwood such as, but not limited to, sites 038A, 253, 277B, 297, 218B, 053B, 189, 318, 288B, 153, 280, 024A and 130.
32.Furthermore, development in less sustainable locations, such as R25 and R26, before more sustainable locations, should be avoided.
Green Belt
33.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts (per para 133 NPPF). The Green Belt serves five purposes (para 134
NPPF) which includes safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the character of historic towns and assisting in urban regeneration.
34.The NPPF further confirms that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified (para 136 NPPF). Meeting an assessed housing need is not an exceptional circumstance. No other exceptional circumstances are put forward by Brentwood Borough Council.
35. Regardless, the NPPF is clear in that before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changing Green Belt boundaries Brentwood Borough Council should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified housing need (para 137 NPPF). In this respect the Parish Council and BVHA say:
35.1. There is no evidence that increasing densities elsewhere negates the need for the release of Green Belt land at sites R25 and R26. It should be remembered that the proposed Green Belt release, per Figure 4.2, only 123 of those homes are to be provided in the "larger villages" such as Blackmore which accounts for 1.5% of the total housing need (which includes a 20% buffer). This is a very modest contribution to housing supply which, the Parish Council and BVHA say, could easily be met by considering all other reasonable alternatives.
35.2. There are brownfield sites which should be identified, considered and used in preference.
35.3. There are also urban sites that should be used in preference, or alternatively, sites in more sustainable locations (i.e. close(r) to urban areas).
35.4. The village of Stondon Massey has actively sought new development within its boundaries. The same may be true of other villages within the Borough. Such "localised" development may reduce or negate the need for sites R25 and/or R26.
36.In consequence of the above, the Parish Council and BVHA say that Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it fully evidenced and justified a need to alter Green Belt boundaries nor that it has examined fully all other reasonable alternatives before doing so.
37.Further to the above, the notes to draft policy SP02 confirm that growth is prioritised "based on brownfield land and land in urban areas first; and only then brownfield land in Green Belt areas where deemed appropriate" (para 4.22). The inclusion of R25 and R26 runs contrary to this - both being greenfield land in the Green Belt.
Whilst SP02 itself talks of the need to direct development to "highly accessible locations" - sites R25 and R26 are in a rural area with poor transport links and limited accessibility. The inclusion of R25 and R26 thus conflicts with policy SP02.
A Settlement Category 3 village?
38.As above the Parish Council and BVHA say that Blackmore should be classed as a Settlement Category 4 village and not the higher Category 3. They say this because: 38.1. There is no local shopping parade but, instead, one Co-Op Store (with Post
Office), a hairdressers and a coffee shop;
38.2. It does not have a health facility - the nearest Doctor's surgery is in
Doddinghurst (which is ~3 miles away and on roads not suitable for walking);
And 38.3. There are no, or very few, local jobs. Of those of working age nearly all
commute out of the village.
39. Accordingly, some of the key attributes of a Category 3 settlement are, in Blackmore's case, missing. As a more general point the population of Blackmore is modest and a considerable margin less than that of Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch which are also classified as Category 3 settlements.
40.Further, of the Category 3 settlements it is only Blackmore (sites R25 and R26) and Kelvedon Hatch (sites R23 and R24) that it is proposed to allocate sites for housing/development. Kelvedon Hatch is in the order of 2.5 times larger (by population) than Blackmore - however its proposed housing allocation (total of ~53) is less, by approximately 25%, than that proposed for Blackmore.
41.This is in contrast to the larger Category 3 settlements of Doddinghurst and Ingrave which have no proposed allocation for housing. Indeed, no allocation is proposed for the other Category 3 settlements of Herongate and Mountnessing.
42.Simply put, the Parish Council and BVHA say that the classification of, and proposed housing allocation in, Blackmore is incorrect.
Other
43.The Parish Council and BVHA support the strategy within the plan. Indeed, in the main they recognise and support the policies within the draft plan. However, they take issue with allocations of sites R25 and R26; not only for the reasons above but when considered against the policy which Brentwood Borough Council are promoting. For example, sites R25 and R26 perform poorly against, or conflict with, draft policies SP01, SP02, SP03, NE01, NE09, BE12, BE13 and BE45. This is not withstanding the case that, in applying the NPPF, the Parish Council and BVHA say that development should be directed elsewhere in preference to sites R25 an R26.
44.The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the fact that of the 123 net homes allocated for "larger villages" 70, or approximately 56% of the total allocation, are met by these two sites. Thus, a disproportionately large amount of the allocation is from sites R25 and R26.
45.The above is notwithstanding the Parish Council and BVHA's primary contention that sites R25 and R26, but possibly all proposed sites on Green Belt Land in larger villages (i.e. settlement category 3), can and should be removed from the Plan.
46.The evidence of working with adjoining planning authorities is limited with a general statement that "adjacent planning authorities [have] confirmed that they [are] unwilling and unable to take any of the Brentwood identified housing need". The Parish Council and BVHA invite Brentwood Borough Council to more fully disclose the extent and nature of discussions that have been held with neighbouring authorities.
Summary/Conclusion
47.The Parish Council and BVHA represent the residents of Blackmore village - an overwhelming majority of whom are opposed to the inclusion of sites R25 and R26.
48.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying their removal from the Green Belt. There is no evidence to demonstrate that all other reasonable alternatives have been explored - those alternatives including increasing densities or brownfield land and land in more urban/sustainable locations. The removal of sites R25 and R26 from the Green Belt is contrary to both local and national planning policies.
49.Development on R25 and R26 has historically been discounted, most recently as 2016. There is no change in local circumstances justifying development on sites R25 and R26 now.
50.Sites R25 and R26 are in an unsustainable location served by a constrained access (Redrose Lane) and with an identified risk of flooding. The development of R25 and R26 does not represent sustainable development.
51.The restricted access that Redrose Lane affords is inconsistent with Brentwood Borough Council's removal of Honey Pot Lane from the LDP on grounds of restricted access. At the Extraordinary Brentwood Council Meeting of 8th November a site known as Honeypot Lane, included in the Plan since inception, was withdrawn. This allocation, designed to include social and low-cost housing within 500m of the Town Centre, was removed due the narrowness of a small section of the road access that created a 'pinch-point', despite being bordered by open land providing opportunity for road widening. Unlike the continuously narrow and unpaved Redrose Lane, Honeypot Lane enjoys a double-width carriageway for all but a short section and is split between 20mph and 30mphs limits. Redrose Lane, where the national speed limit applies, is posted with weight restriction warning; whereas Honeypot Lane is not.
52.There is no evidence of a need for housing in the village of Blackmore. If there is a need then it has not been quantified by reference to number of type/size of property. Regardless, the proposed allocation accounts for a disproportionately large amount of development in "larger villages" within the Borough (i.e. >50% of the proposed Green Belt release in larger villages comes from Blackmore alone).
53.The plan is not sound with the inclusion of sites R25 and R26. The inclusion of sites R25 and R26 cannot be justified owing to the absence of proportionate evidence and a failure to assess all reasonable alternatives. The inclusion of these sites is contrary to national policy, particularly with regards to sustainable development and Green Belt land policies within the NPPF.
54.The Parish Council and BVHA believe that the change in approach, i.e. in seeking to allocate R25 and R26 now, is a result of developer pressure rather than a true assessment of the planning merit (or lack of) of sites R25 and R26 for residential development.
55.Brentwood Borough Council should amend the plan to retain R25 and R26 as Green Belt and not allocate them for housing.
HOLMES & HILLS LLP Dated 18 March 2019
Appendix 1: Photos of Redrose Lane with reference to size of Lane.
Appendix 2: Appendix Two - re R25 and R26 as Important Habitat sites
Blackmore Wildlife
The wildlife listed below has all been observed in the fields by Woollard Way and Orchard Piece and these fields provide invaluable nesting and foraging grounds.
Birds:
Redpoll, Yellowhammer, Skylarks, Barn Owls, Little Owls, Buzzard, Red Kite, Sparrowhawk, Song Thrush, Red-legged Partridges, Kestrels, Turtle Doves, Hedge sparrow, Siskin.
In particular Barn Owls and their nesting sites are protected by law during the breeding season - https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/ringing/taking-part/protected-birds/s1- list
Turtle doves, Skylarks and Yellow Hammers are on the RSPB's red list which means,
amongst other things, that the species is globally threatened and are the highest priority for conservation - https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/uk- conservation-status-explained/

Reptiles:
Grass Snakes and Great Crested Newts which are a protected species -
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/amphibians/great-crested-newt
Photos of Owl; Sparrowhawk; reptile: newt; Bats:
All bats are protected by the law in the UK - https://www.bats.org.uk/advice/bats-and- the-law

They are frequently seen flying around the fields (i.e. R25 and R26) and there is possible nesting in the outbuildings.
Bats - video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Be5ZUlvRwEDhh_ivlLf1fxb0Rf2QS3z/view
Appendix 3: Agricultural Lan Assessment and Flooding/Flood Risk mapping.
Photographs of Chelmsford Road and Redrose Lane Flooding 1987; 2016.
Flooding on The Green 2016; Flooding on Redrose Lane 2016 ((note depth of water). Redrose Lane 2018.

Extract from Daily Telegraph re: 2011 flooding.

Extract from Express re 2011 Flooding:
A woman is rescued from her car stuck in floodwater in Blackmore,
Essex, yesterday
Express - 18 Jan 2011
Fire Service in Redrose Lane east bound to Chelmsford Road.

Extract from Romford recorder RE: 2011 flooding

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on your Local Plan pre-submission consultation. We welcome the Council's strategic longer-term approach to housing supply. Your target accommodates a 'buffer' on top of the housing need based on the Government's standardised methodology. It should be noted that our latest demographic modelling provides alternative population and household projections that could also be taken into account when applying the standardised approach. Our projections include consistent outputs for all local authorities in England and form the basis for housing need in the draft new London Plan. They are available on the London Datastore: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/projections. We also welcome the Council's commitment to the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan with the other South Essex authorities and associated strategic planning for growth in the area. We would be happy to support the preparation of the Plan and its technical evidence. It would be useful to understand the relationship between the Council's Growth Strategy and the joint South Essex Strategic Growth Locations Study. It is also noted that Thurrock's Local Plan Issues and Options (Part 2) consultation includes a new settlement on the border with Brentwood amongst its growth options. In terms of economic development, we note the significant allocation of additional employment land, in particular through the Brentwood Enterprise Park. In the light of its proximity to London, it could be useful to discuss related collaboration opportunities, specifically including land for distribution and logistics, as well as wider sustainability implications. Any significant future changes to the town centre hierarchy with the Borough, including significant new retail / leisure development, should consider any potential impacts on town centre retail / leisure provision within London as well as on the sustainability of travel patterns. It should be noted that Brentwood is located within the new London Plan's Strategic Infrastructure Priorities 'Greater Eastern Mainline (London-Ipswitch-Norwich) and A12' and Essex Thameside, A127 and A13 corridors' (see Policy SD3 and Figure 2.15). The Lower Thames Crossing will also have implications for travel and land use in the Borough, which will need to be considered as the scheme progresses. As set out in the consultation response by Tranport for London, we welcome the Council's support for sustainable modes of transport. As Brentwood borders London, we would be grateful, if consideration could also be given to the Healthy Streets Approach that is set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy and Policy T2 of the draft London Plan. We would be happy to discuss the matters raised above as well as matters related to the preparation of the Joint Strategic Plan further. Please get in touch with (Officers name and email address), if you would like to arrange a meeting.

Section 03, Rep 1: In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough. Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning. An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW

In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW

6 Submitted forms, commenting on the SA and on the Local Plan.
Form A:Chapters 1-3,
Form B Chapter 4,
Form C Chapter 5,
Form D Chapter 6,
Form E Chapter 7,
Form F Chapter 9
These representations deal with the following chapters in the Plan:
* Chapter 1. Introduction
* Chapter 2. Borough of Villages
* Chapter 3. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives
In relation to Chapter 1, under Sustainability Appraisal, we also comment on the Sustainability Appraisal report (AECOM, January 2019).

Within our response to question no. 5 below, reference is made to specific pages, paragraphs and/or policies.

Chapter 1. Introduction

Duty to Cooperate (page 14)

Paragraphs 1.11 to 1.15 of the Local Plan briefly describe the Duty to Cooperate, its legal requirements in this regard and its commitment to cooperating with neighbouring authorities and key organisations on strategic planning issues. Paragraph 1.14 indicates the Council will publish a Duty to Cooperate Position Statement to describe the ongoing engagement and provide an update on the activities undertaken so far.
The Duty to Cooperate was introduced by the Localism Act 2011, and is set out in section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It places a legal duty on local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters. This is picked up in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which makes it clear that (paragraphs 25 - 27):
(a) strategic policy-making authorities should collaborate to identify the strategic matters of relevance;
(b) effective and ongoing joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant authorities is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy; and
(c) in order to demonstrate this, statements of common ground should be produced (in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and made publicly available so as to ensure transparency.

The Position Statement makes it clear that engagement with a wide range of stakeholders has taken place over several years which is noted and supported, as it demonstrates a significant effort has been made. CEG can confirm such an effort has been made by the Council with them over the Dunton Hills Strategic Allocation. However, at present CEG is not convinced that the Position Statement demonstrates that the Council has complied with the duty. The Council itself describes the document as a 'snapshot' and an 'initial summary' suggesting more is being done.
The PPG places much more emphasis on statements of common ground as how strategic policy making authorities can demonstrate that a plan is based on effective cooperation and that they have sought to produce a strategy based on agreements with other authorities. The Council has not yet provided the level of detail set out in the PPG and this will need to be worked up in due course.
The PPG also indicates that as the duty relates to the preparation of the plan it cannot be rectified post-submission so if the Inspector finds that the duty has not been complied with the examination would not proceed further. It might well be the case that there is further evidence, to which the Council can point in demonstrating compliance with a duty but it does not appear to be publicly available.
CEG understands that discussions with various authorities and prescribed bodies are well advanced and that an updated Position Statement will be prepared prior to submission to fully document the level of cooperation and the extent of agreement reached.
It is noted that the Position Statement refers to Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and consultation with Homes England but makes no reference to consultation with other relevant authorities or prescribed bodies which CEG knows has occurred. The updated Position Statement and relevant Statements of Common Ground should explain the full extent of the cooperation and agreement that has been reached in relation to this Strategic Allocation, as CEG is aware that it has been very extensive.
Sustainability Appraisal (Local Plan, page 15) & Interim Sustainability Appraisal (January 2019)
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 makes clear that local planning authorities must carry out a process of sustainability appraisal alongside plan making. This approach is reinforced in the NPPF which states that local plans and spatial development strategies should be informed throughout their preparation by a sustainability appraisal that meets the relevant statutory tests. Sustainability appraisals are required to demonstrate how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives and avoid significant adverse impacts, wherever possible.
The Council has prepared Interim Sustainability Appraisals throughout the preparation of the Local Plan and this has informed the Spatial Strategy. The latest Interim Sustainability Appraisal explains the seven alternative development scenarios considered and the reasons for supporting some scenarios over others. There is an assessment of each scenario against economic, social and environmental topics based upon the relevant evidence base for each topic. This assessment explains why some scenarios rank higher than others. The Interim Sustainability Appraisal is sound and has been prepared in accordance with legislative requirements and the NPPF.
CEG supports the conclusion regarding DHGV but considers that the Council should supplement the assessment of the options - this could be more empirical and provide a fuller explanation of the conclusions reached, with more cross reference to the outcomes of other evidence base. Furthermore, in considering landscape issues the assessment does not deal with the landscape capacity of sites or areas to accommodate new development.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan (page 17 - 18)

The Council helpfully explains the progress that has been made on the Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) and the collaboration that has occurred on this. However, CEG considers that the relationship between the Local Plan and the JSP should be made clearer. It should be clearly explained that adoption of the JSP will only occur after the adoption of the Brentwood Local Plan and because of the timing the Brentwood Local Plan will contribute towards some of the growth requirements of the JSP. To address this, some modifications are suggested in response to question no. 6 below.
Chapter 2. Borough of Villages

CEG supports the characterisation of Brentwood as a Borough of Villages and the Borough Profile (February 2019) evidence base which describes the unique nature of a market town and surrounding villages set amongst countryside as fundamental to the Borough's character. CEG considers that it is entirely appropriate that this characterisation forms a central part of the Vision set out in Chapter 3 of the Local Plan.

Fig. 2.2 (Brentwood Borough Hierarchy) in the Local Plan draws from the existing and proposed settlement hierarchy diagrams set out in the Borough Profile, and shows in plan form how well the Local Plan proposals reflect the Borough of Villages character. This includes the DHGV proposal, which presents a very positive response to meet the Borough's housing needs and will fit into the hierarchy of settlements in the future as set out in Fig. 2.3 (Settlement Hierarchy) in the Local Plan.

Chapter 3. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

The Spatial Strategy identifies two growth areas which align with transport corridors; the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor and the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, within which DHGV is proposed. Development outside of these corridors will be limited to retain the local character of the Borough (paragraph 3.21).

The NPPF recognises that the supply of a large number of homes can often best be achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns (paragraph 72). The approach of planning for DHGV is consistent with this and retaining the local character of the Borough.

CEG supports the Vison, the Driving Factors, the Overarching Aims, Strategic Objectives and the Strategic Allocation of DHGV as part of the South Brentwood Growth Corridor set out in Chapter 3. The Spatial Strategy and Development Principles will deliver the Vision. Given the importance attributed to Brentwood as a Borough of Villages and the need for Brentwood to meet its housing needs, the Spatial Strategy is sound; it is positively prepared, justified and consistent with national policy.

. LLLP conclude that amendment of the Vision Statement is required to ensure it
properly reflects the three overarching national planning policy objectives for
sustainable development and in particular makes an explicit reference to meeting in
full the Borough's housing needs

Representations for and on LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
Vision and Spatial Strategy Driving Factors
March 2019
Introduction
1. Chilmark Consulting Ltd. (CCL) are instructed by and write for and on behalf of
LaSalle Land Limited Partnership (LLLP) with respect to the Brentwood Borough
Local Plan: Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with the Plan's Vision and Spatial Strategy Driving
Factors set out in Section 3.
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
Vision Statement
4. The Plan's Vision statement set out at page 35 is not clear. It refers to a:
"landscape-led development, where new development responds to a 'design and
build with nature' approach...".
5. LLLP does not consider that the Vision represents an effective statement. It is not
clear what is meant by "landscape-led" and "design and build with nature" or how
this is then translated into the proposed allocation of significant housing land in the
Dunton Hills Garden Village, which would involve a very significant intrusion into the
existing countryside landscape and impacts on biodiversity and ecological systems.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
2
6. It is also unclear from the Vision Statement and supporting text how a landscapeled
approach accords with the definition of sustainable development established in
the NPPF at paragraph 8 which identifies three overarching and inter-dependent
objectives: (a) economic; (b) social; (c) and environmental.
7. It is considered that a "landscape-led" and "design with nature" approach may help
meet (c) the environmental objective of the NPPF but over-emphasises this to the
detriment of meeting objectives (a) and (b) of paragraph 8 which are equally
important.
8. The Vision statement fails to set out the need to meet housing growth requirements
which are described at paragraph 3.1 (c) (within the section Spatial Strategy Driving
Factors), to include meeting the Borough's housing needs.
Conclusions
9. LLLP object to the plan's Vision Statement. The Vision is not sound as it is not:
* Consistent with National Policy - for the reasons identified in this
representation, LLLP does not consider that the Vision statement is
consistent with the NPPF definition of sustainable development which
underpins the approach to plan-making.
Modifications Sought
10. LLLP conclude that amendment of the Vision Statement is required to ensure it
properly reflects the three overarching national planning policy objectives for
sustainable development and in particular makes an explicit reference to meeting in
full the Borough's housing needs

These representations are submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Stonebond Properties Ltd. in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Proposed Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (PSLP), and in particular with regards to our client's land interests at Stocks Lane, Kelvedon Hatch. This is proposed for allocation under Policy R24 of the PSLP. Plans showing the site are included within the Vision Document at Appendix A to this representation. As the Council will be aware, representations have previously been made on behalf of the landowner, W H Norris & Sons, in respect of the land at Stocks Lane, most recently as part of the Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation in March 2018. Since then the site has come into the control of Stonebond Properties Ltd, a local housing developer with considerable experience of bringing forward high quality homes on small and medium sites. As a result of the previous representations and discussions with officers at Brentwood Borough Council alongside the Local Plan process, this site and land at Blackmore Road (Site R23, Brize's Corner Field, also now under Stonebond Properties' control) have been proposed as sites for future residential development within PSLP. Stonebond's overall position is one of firm support for the PSLP and this is expressed where relevant in these representations, albeit with some overarching concerns, notably in relation to certain elements of the Policy R24 in relation to the amount of development, the expected time for delivery in the Plan period and certain elements of the PSLP's Development Management Policies. Where such concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist in BBC making the Plan more robust and improving its soundness in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy. Stonebond Properties request the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the Examination of the submitted Local Plan. Settlement Hierarchy: Kelvedon Hatch is confirmed as a Category 3 Larger Village as set out in the Settlement Hierarchy shown at figure 2.3 of PSLP. It states that these villages are characterised by the amount of amenities and services able to cater for residents' day to day needs. Kelvedon Hatch has a local centre with a range of services, facilities, access to public transport, and education services. The PSLP sets out that Category 3 settlements should seek to make the most of brownfield redevelopment opportunities, while limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. The population is stated as 2,124, making Kelvedon Hatch the second largest Category 3 Settlement behind Doddinghurst. Due to the proximity of Doddinghurst (around 1km to the east), there is a reciprocal relationship between the two villages in terms of the availability and access to services and other facilities. As a result, development at Kelvedon Hatch is clearly a sustainable location to which a proportion of the Borough's housing need should be directed. In addition, as an established community, it is important that the Local Plan provides for the growth of the settlement to ensure the vitality of the community is sustained or enhanced. In line with Paragraph 78 of the NPPF, growth in one village may have the added benefit of further supporting opportunities and growth in nearby surrounding villages. The two sites for additional housing in Kelvedon Hatch identified in the PSLP at Land at Stocks Lane (R24) and west at Blackmore Road (R23) are fully supported. The proposed allocation of these two sites is considered to be justified, consistent with national policy and necessary to ensure the sustainable growth of Kelvedon Hatch and the Borough for reasons set out elsewhere in these representations. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives: Vision for the Borough: The Vision for the Borough set out at Section 3 of the PSLP is supported. For the reasons set out in these representations, carefully planned development at Kelvedon Hatch as provided for at Policies R23 and R24 will make an important contribution to BBC's housing needs to meet the Local Plan objectives. Indeed, these representations and those relating to R24 make the case that a modest and justified increase in the sites' ability to accommodate more homes will assist meet those aims and provide for greater flexibility in meeting housing needs. Stonebond Properties have undertaken detailed site assessments. These confirm that there are no barriers to delivery of development. As a consequence, the expressed objectives of development in the Vision to be landscape-led responding to a "design and build with nature approach firmly embedding high quality green infrastructure through public realm to create a seamless transition to our surrounding countryside" can all be achieved and delivered in the allocation of sites R23 and R24. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Documents to this representation for R24. Managing Growth - Policy SP02: Managing Growth: Policy SP02 proposes a total of 7,752 dwellings be provided in the Borough between 2011 and 2033 with 310 homes per year to 2022/23 and then 584 per year from 2022/23 taking forward a "stepped delivery" approach to deal with a projected shortfall in the first 5 years of the PSLP. This is mainly because a greater proportion of homes to be delivered in the PSLP comprise sites located in the Green Belt, resulting in longer lead in times to delivery. Whilst we do not raise objections in principle to the stepped approach as far as our clients are concerned there is a prospect that some sites in the Green Belt have the prospect of coming forward earlier, particularly smaller and medium sized developments. This certainly includes this site R24, and R23 that is the subject of a separate representation. This matter is dealt with further at Section 8 below. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the stepped approach proposed, there are still issues with BBC's over-optimistic estimates and assumptions on the delivery of larger strategic sites proposed for allocation in the PSLP. BBC are effectively placing most of its "eggs in one basket." in the range of sites that are proposed in the PSLP. It is important to note that, of the new allocations, 4,578 homes are made up of strategic allocations (of which 2,700 are at Dunton Hills Garden Village and are to be delivered in the Plan period) and 1,510 are other allocations The strategic sites therefore represent 68% of the total number of new homes of which some 59% are allocated at Dunton Hills. The ability of larger strategic sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin Review (2018); and issues with their complexity, have been ably set out in the Lichfield's study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematical due to a range of factors, including establishing required infrastructure requirements and the timing of housing delivery associated with those requirements, as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Lichfield's report confirms that the planning process takes, on average, 2.5 years for the planning application determination period for up to 500 units; this can double for sites over 1,000 units. Two of the strategic sites within the PSLP's allocations also comprise developed sites currently in employment uses. The strategic sites are expected to deliver some 1555 homes within 5 years of an assumed adoption in 2020/21. Given the issues set out above it is considered that this is unrealistic and it would not be justified or the most appropriate strategy to rely on these sites for short term housing delivery. It therefore emphasises the need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound. Sequential Land Use: Paragraph 4.22 and 4.23 of the PSLP suggested that a sequential approach is to be taken to the determination of planning applications, referring only to prioritising brownfield land in urban areas and brownfield land in the Green Belt. The reasons for this are unclear when the PSLP strategy includes releasing land from the Green Belt to meet development needs which includes the sites the subject of these representations. The growth requirements set out by Policy SP02, and the sequential approach to meeting those requirements are referred to at paragraph 3.23, provide for the justification for the chosen spatial strategy. As a consequence, it is not justified to suggest that a sequential test be taken for the determination of planning applications and paras 4.22 and 4.23 should be deleted from the PSLP. SP04 - Developer Contributions: There are no objections to the general approach expressed in Policy SP04 for developer contributions. However, section E is nether precise, necessary or justified and could be open to misinterpretation. It is therefore recommended that this be omitted. Resilient Built Environment: We are generally supportive of the Council's objectives to achieve a resilient built environment. Nevertheless, there are concerns that the policies set out in the PSLP and as drafted may have an impact on viability, deliverability and affordability for housing development generally. We are aware of the representations made by the House Builders Federation (HBF) referring to sustainable construction (BE020), allotments (BE20), Green and Blue Infrastructure (BE18), access to nature (BE19), digital infrastructure (BE10), open space (BE22), electrical vehicle charging (BE15), housing quality (HP06). The implications of the requirements set out do not appear to have been fully considered as part of the viability assessment. As a consequence, we would suggest that the viability assessment for the PSLP is revisited to reflect on these requirements to better inform or provide clarity on the proposed policies. Policy BE01 - Future Proofing: Whilst the Council's objectives towards future proofing of development are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. It is of some concern that Part A of the Policy requires that all applications must take into account....... when the process of development management and determination of applications is far more prescriptive and binary in decision making. As a consequence, it is suggested that Policy BE01 should be set out as supporting text rather than a specific policy. Policy BE02 - Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency: Whilst the Council's objectives towards sustainable construction and resource efficiency are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. The requirement to submit details of measures that increase resilience to the threat of climate change at b. is also considered to be over prescriptive when such techniques may vary substantially. The general principles set out at para 5.19 are reflective of the fact that these matters ought more properly to be dealt with by supporting text rather than a specific policy. In addition, we are aware of comments made by the HBF on this policy and we support those comments. Policy BE20 - Allotments and Community Food Growing Space: Whilst the Council's aspirations for providing allotments are acknowledged, the policy as set out provides for no clear thresholds as to when such space should be provided which is not justified in the terms set out. On this basis, it is recommended that the policy should either be omitted and dealt with by the text to the PSLP or justified against thresholds or site specific requirements. In this respect, it may be that large strategic sites may need to include a requirement but it is certainly not necessary for smaller or medium sized sites, such as those the subject of these representations. Policy BE22 - Open Space in New Development: The policy is broadly supported. As can be seen from the Vision document that accompanies these representations, our proposed scheme for R24 makes provision for such space. It is nevertheless questionable whether it is necessary for all open space to be fully equipped (D.). The need for equipped space should also be related to the amount of development proposed and/or availability or local equipped areas. As a consequence, it is recommended that criteria D is amended to be refined to provide clarity on when equipped open space is required eg. on sites over 50 homes. Housing Provision: Policy HP01 - Housing Mix: The Council's approach to providing for an appropriate mix of dwelling types is generally supported. However, the Policy as set out refers to the Borough wide requirements in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and does not necessarily take into account a local area or sub area within the Borough. It is important to note that the SHMA requirements, at Figure 6.1, confirms that it is an indicative mix guide for market housing. It is also noted that para 6.5 confirms that the final mix will be subject to negotiation. This is welcomed on the basis that some flexibility will be necessary in certain circumstances as part of the planning application process. As a consequence, it is suggested that para 6.5 should provide greater clarity and a minor change confirming that the final mix will be subject to negotiation "as part of a planning application" rather than "with the applicant". We are aware of the representations submitted by HBF regarding accessible homes and justification. We support those views. It is questionable whether it is necessary for the PSLP to set out in planning policy the requirements of Building Regulations. Policy HP03 - Residential Density: We support the PSLP's approach to residential density as set out in Policy HP03. This is considered to be justified based on the evidence and consistent with the national policy. As far as our client's land interests are concerned at R23 and R24, both sites are capable of providing an increased density to that expressed for the relevant policies R23 and R24. However, part B of the policy quite properly acknowledges that a chosen density should take into account the character of the surrounding area and other site constraints. This is supported. A further explanation of suggested density or yield for R24 is set out at Section 8 below. Policy HP05 - Affordable Housing: We note that the SHMA provides justification for the affordable housing requirements. However, it is questionable whether the precise tenure/mix should be set out at B(a) of the Policy, given that requirements can change relatively quickly over time and the prescriptive approach may not take into account precise local needs. As a consequence, it is recommended that the criteria under B(a) should omit the reference to 86% and 14% proportions. It is suggested, in the alternative, that "the mix, size, type and cost of affordable homes will meet the identified housing needs of the Council's area and local needs as appropriate, established by housing need assessments including the SHMA". Design and Place-making: The approach set out in the PSLP for design and place-making is broadly supported. However, we note that there are effectively seven policies (HP12 - HP18) which provide the requirements against these matters. We also note that there are some areas of repetition on some of the objectives against those policies. We consider that those commenting on and determining applications should preferably have one or two identified policies to refer to and/or applicable thresholds to more succinctly set out requirements. This would ensure that planning applications can be more effectively judged against context, design and place-shaping criteria. Natural Environment: We generally support the Council's approach to Green Belt and the identification of suitable sites to meet the Council's housing and other needs. Accompanying these representations is an overview of the Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity considerations relating to Stonebond's land interests at R23 and R24 to confirm the suitability of removing those sites from the Green Belt and limited impact on the landscape. Policy NE13 - Site Allocations in the Green Belt: We welcome the PSLP's intentions to remove sites R23 and R24 from the Green Belt. This calls into question the need for Policy NE13. The requirements set out by criterion A and B are dealt with by other policies in the Plan. If there are site specific requirements relating to sites, these should be covered within the specific policies relating to those sites. Site Allocations: Policy R24 - Land off Stocks Lane: The proposed allocation of Land off Stocks Lane as Policy R24 and its removal from the Green Belt is considered sound and is fully supported. It has been established through the evidence base supporting the PSLP that Kelvedon Hatch is a sustainable location to accommodate a modest amount of new houses to contribute to the Borough's housing needs. Indeed, as recognised by para 68 of the NPPF and as a medium sized site, such sites make an important contribution to "meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out quickly". We do however have some concerns with the amount of development set out at A of the Policy and the indicative yield at page 340 and the suggested trajectory for the site at Appendix 1. These matters are dealt with below. Supporting these representations is a Vision Document at Appendix A, a review of Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity at Appendix B and a Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix C. These all confirm that the development at the site is both justified and fully deliverable within the terms of para 67a) of the NPPF. The Vision Document demonstrates that careful consideration has been given to the emerging policies set out at BE01, BE08, BE22, as well as those relating to Design and Place-making at HP12, HP13, HP14, HP15 and HP18 of the PSLP to confirm that a scheme can meet the PSLP objectives in this regard. The Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix B confirms that there are no constraints to delivery. In addition, Stonebond Properties commissioned a transport appraisal from Ardent Consulting Engineers. This has confirmed that the location of the access shown in the Vision Document meets normal highway requirements in terms of safety and visability. This has been confirmed in speed surveys undertaken in Stocks Lane. The Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment at Appendix B confirms that the release of the site from the Green Belt is justified. It also confirms that there would be no significant impact on the surrounding landscape. Part A of Policy R24 suggests that there be provision for around 30 new homes on the site. Part A Policy HP03 of the PSLP requires proposals to take a design led approach to density to ensure schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land. Part B expects development to achieve a net density of at least 35dph unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that such densities would be inappropriate. The suggested amount of 30 homes set out for Policy R24 does not currently reflect these requirements or provide an accurate representation of what is achievable on site. 30 homes represent 18.6dph which clearly does not represent an efficient or effective use of the land contrary to the objectives of HP03 and the supporting text set out at 6.18 to 6.20 and 6.22. The Vision Document confirms that around 45 homes can actually be provided on the site representing a far more efficient and effective dwelling yield. 45 homes would represent a density of approximately 28dph. Whilst this does not achieve 35dph, the Vision Document demonstrates that full account has been taken of the objectives of HP03 to ensure that a scheme would be sympathetic to local character. Critically, the illustrative scheme shows provision for open space within the site to meet the objectives of Policies HP13 and BE22. These policies provide for functional on-site open space. As such, achieving a greater density would be problematical. In addition, it is important to note that the site is on the edge of the settlement where there is a need for sensitivity, having regard to the countryside to the east and south. Para 6.22 of the PSLP confirms that efficient land use is critical to the delivery of this Plan for the reasons set out at Sections 4 and 6 above against this background, it is recommended that amendments are made as follows: Policy R24A - substitute 30 new homes with 45 new homes; Page R24 - indicative dwelling yield substitute 30 with 45. At para 9.195 the PSLP suggests the development would take its access from Blackmore Road. This is an error. The paragraph should be amended to refer to Stocks Lane. The site is within the control of Stonebond Properties, a local house builder with considerable experience in the development of medium sized sites, quick delivery and achieving high design and layout standards. Upon removal from the Green Belt and grant of a planning permission, it would be expected that development at the site could commence 2020/21 and be completed within two years of the Plan. As a consequence, it is recommended that the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory at Appendix 1 is amended to provide for the following based on an increased number of homes as set out in these representations: Year 5 - 2020/21 = 10; Year 6 - 2021/22 = 35. These comments on Policy R24 provide greater certainty on delivery of the site. In addition, the changes suggested would contribute to the issues we have identified elsewhere with the PSLP specifically in relation to the supply and delivery of homes generally. As a result, we trust that the Council will be able to agree modifications/changes accordingly.

These representations are submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Stonebond Properties Ltd. in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Proposed Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) (PSLP), and in particular with regards to our client's land interests at Stocks Lane, Kelvedon Hatch. This is proposed for allocation under Policy R24 of the PSLP. Plans showing the site are included within the Vision Document at Appendix A to this representation. As the Council will be aware, representations have previously been made on behalf of the landowner, W H Norris & Sons, in respect of the land at Stocks Lane, most recently as part of the Regulation 18 Local Plan Consultation in March 2018. Since then the site has come into the control of Stonebond Properties Ltd, a local housing developer with considerable experience of bringing forward high quality homes on small and medium sites. As a result of the previous representations and discussions with officers at Brentwood Borough Council alongside the Local Plan process, this site and land at Blackmore Road (Site R23, Brize's Corner Field, also now under Stonebond Properties' control) have been proposed as sites for future residential development within PSLP. Stonebond's overall position is one of firm support for the PSLP and this is expressed where relevant in these representations, albeit with some overarching concerns, notably in relation to certain elements of the Policy R24 in relation to the amount of development, the expected time for delivery in the Plan period and certain elements of the PSLP's Development Management Policies. Where such concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist in BBC making the Plan more robust and improving its soundness in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy. Stonebond Properties request the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the Examination of the submitted Local Plan. Settlement Hierarchy: Kelvedon Hatch is confirmed as a Category 3 Larger Village as set out in the Settlement Hierarchy shown at figure 2.3 of PSLP. It states that these villages are characterised by the amount of amenities and services able to cater for residents' day to day needs. Kelvedon Hatch has a local centre with a range of services, facilities, access to public transport, and education services. The PSLP sets out that Category 3 settlements should seek to make the most of brownfield redevelopment opportunities, while limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. The population is stated as 2,124, making Kelvedon Hatch the second largest Category 3 Settlement behind Doddinghurst. Due to the proximity of Doddinghurst (around 1km to the east), there is a reciprocal relationship between the two villages in terms of the availability and access to services and other facilities. As a result, development at Kelvedon Hatch is clearly a sustainable location to which a proportion of the Borough's housing need should be directed. In addition, as an established community, it is important that the Local Plan provides for the growth of the settlement to ensure the vitality of the community is sustained or enhanced. In line with Paragraph 78 of the NPPF, growth in one village may have the added benefit of further supporting opportunities and growth in nearby surrounding villages. The two sites for additional housing in Kelvedon Hatch identified in the PSLP at Land at Stocks Lane (R24) and west at Blackmore Road (R23) are fully supported. The proposed allocation of these two sites is considered to be justified, consistent with national policy and necessary to ensure the sustainable growth of Kelvedon Hatch and the Borough for reasons set out elsewhere in these representations. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives: Vision for the Borough: The Vision for the Borough set out at Section 3 of the PSLP is supported. For the reasons set out in these representations, carefully planned development at Kelvedon Hatch as provided for at Policies R23 and R24 will make an important contribution to BBC's housing needs to meet the Local Plan objectives. Indeed, these representations and those relating to R24 make the case that a modest and justified increase in the sites' ability to accommodate more homes will assist meet those aims and provide for greater flexibility in meeting housing needs. Stonebond Properties have undertaken detailed site assessments. These confirm that there are no barriers to delivery of development. As a consequence, the expressed objectives of development in the Vision to be landscape-led responding to a "design and build with nature approach firmly embedding high quality green infrastructure through public realm to create a seamless transition to our surrounding countryside" can all be achieved and delivered in the allocation of sites R23 and R24. This is demonstrated in the accompanying Vision Documents to this representation for R24. Managing Growth - Policy SP02: Managing Growth: Policy SP02 proposes a total of 7,752 dwellings be provided in the Borough between 2011 and 2033 with 310 homes per year to 2022/23 and then 584 per year from 2022/23 taking forward a "stepped delivery" approach to deal with a projected shortfall in the first 5 years of the PSLP. This is mainly because a greater proportion of homes to be delivered in the PSLP comprise sites located in the Green Belt, resulting in longer lead in times to delivery. Whilst we do not raise objections in principle to the stepped approach as far as our clients are concerned there is a prospect that some sites in the Green Belt have the prospect of coming forward earlier, particularly smaller and medium sized developments. This certainly includes this site R24, and R23 that is the subject of a separate representation. This matter is dealt with further at Section 8 below. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the stepped approach proposed, there are still issues with BBC's over-optimistic estimates and assumptions on the delivery of larger strategic sites proposed for allocation in the PSLP. BBC are effectively placing most of its "eggs in one basket." in the range of sites that are proposed in the PSLP. It is important to note that, of the new allocations, 4,578 homes are made up of strategic allocations (of which 2,700 are at Dunton Hills Garden Village and are to be delivered in the Plan period) and 1,510 are other allocations The strategic sites therefore represent 68% of the total number of new homes of which some 59% are allocated at Dunton Hills. The ability of larger strategic sites to come forward quickly has been the subject of recent assessments in the Independent Review of Build Out, the Letwin Review (2018); and issues with their complexity, have been ably set out in the Lichfield's study From Start to Finish (2016). Both provide empirical evidence that the early delivery of such sites can be problematical due to a range of factors, including establishing required infrastructure requirements and the timing of housing delivery associated with those requirements, as well as the prolonged or protracted nature of the planning process. The Lichfield's report confirms that the planning process takes, on average, 2.5 years for the planning application determination period for up to 500 units; this can double for sites over 1,000 units. Two of the strategic sites within the PSLP's allocations also comprise developed sites currently in employment uses. The strategic sites are expected to deliver some 1555 homes within 5 years of an assumed adoption in 2020/21. Given the issues set out above it is considered that this is unrealistic and it would not be justified or the most appropriate strategy to rely on these sites for short term housing delivery. It therefore emphasises the need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound. Sequential Land Use: Paragraph 4.22 and 4.23 of the PSLP suggested that a sequential approach is to be taken to the determination of planning applications, referring only to prioritising brownfield land in urban areas and brownfield land in the Green Belt. The reasons for this are unclear when the PSLP strategy includes releasing land from the Green Belt to meet development needs which includes the sites the subject of these representations. The growth requirements set out by Policy SP02, and the sequential approach to meeting those requirements are referred to at paragraph 3.23, provide for the justification for the chosen spatial strategy. As a consequence, it is not justified to suggest that a sequential test be taken for the determination of planning applications and paras 4.22 and 4.23 should be deleted from the PSLP. SP04 - Developer Contributions: There are no objections to the general approach expressed in Policy SP04 for developer contributions. However, section E is nether precise, necessary or justified and could be open to misinterpretation. It is therefore recommended that this be omitted. Resilient Built Environment: We are generally supportive of the Council's objectives to achieve a resilient built environment. Nevertheless, there are concerns that the policies set out in the PSLP and as drafted may have an impact on viability, deliverability and affordability for housing development generally. We are aware of the representations made by the House Builders Federation (HBF) referring to sustainable construction (BE020), allotments (BE20), Green and Blue Infrastructure (BE18), access to nature (BE19), digital infrastructure (BE10), open space (BE22), electrical vehicle charging (BE15), housing quality (HP06). The implications of the requirements set out do not appear to have been fully considered as part of the viability assessment. As a consequence, we would suggest that the viability assessment for the PSLP is revisited to reflect on these requirements to better inform or provide clarity on the proposed policies. Policy BE01 - Future Proofing: Whilst the Council's objectives towards future proofing of development are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. It is of some concern that Part A of the Policy requires that all applications must take into account....... when the process of development management and determination of applications is far more prescriptive and binary in decision making. As a consequence, it is suggested that Policy BE01 should be set out as supporting text rather than a specific policy. Policy BE02 - Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency: Whilst the Council's objectives towards sustainable construction and resource efficiency are broadly supported, it is questionable whether it is necessary to set out a detailed planning policy to this effect when a number of the criteria set out comprise a series of aspirations. The requirement to submit details of measures that increase resilience to the threat of climate change at b. is also considered to be over prescriptive when such techniques may vary substantially. The general principles set out at para 5.19 are reflective of the fact that these matters ought more properly to be dealt with by supporting text rather than a specific policy. In addition, we are aware of comments made by the HBF on this policy and we support those comments. Policy BE20 - Allotments and Community Food Growing Space: Whilst the Council's aspirations for providing allotments are acknowledged, the policy as set out provides for no clear thresholds as to when such space should be provided which is not justified in the terms set out. On this basis, it is recommended that the policy should either be omitted and dealt with by the text to the PSLP or justified against thresholds or site specific requirements. In this respect, it may be that large strategic sites may need to include a requirement but it is certainly not necessary for smaller or medium sized sites, such as those the subject of these representations. Policy BE22 - Open Space in New Development: The policy is broadly supported. As can be seen from the Vision document that accompanies these representations, our proposed scheme for R24 makes provision for such space. It is nevertheless questionable whether it is necessary for all open space to be fully equipped (D.). The need for equipped space should also be related to the amount of development proposed and/or availability or local equipped areas. As a consequence, it is recommended that criteria D is amended to be refined to provide clarity on when equipped open space is required eg. on sites over 50 homes. Housing Provision: Policy HP01 - Housing Mix: The Council's approach to providing for an appropriate mix of dwelling types is generally supported. However, the Policy as set out refers to the Borough wide requirements in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and does not necessarily take into account a local area or sub area within the Borough. It is important to note that the SHMA requirements, at Figure 6.1, confirms that it is an indicative mix guide for market housing. It is also noted that para 6.5 confirms that the final mix will be subject to negotiation. This is welcomed on the basis that some flexibility will be necessary in certain circumstances as part of the planning application process. As a consequence, it is suggested that para 6.5 should provide greater clarity and a minor change confirming that the final mix will be subject to negotiation "as part of a planning application" rather than "with the applicant". We are aware of the representations submitted by HBF regarding accessible homes and justification. We support those views. It is questionable whether it is necessary for the PSLP to set out in planning policy the requirements of Building Regulations. Policy HP03 - Residential Density: We support the PSLP's approach to residential density as set out in Policy HP03. This is considered to be justified based on the evidence and consistent with the national policy. As far as our client's land interests are concerned at R23 and R24, both sites are capable of providing an increased density to that expressed for the relevant policies R23 and R24. However, part B of the policy quite properly acknowledges that a chosen density should take into account the character of the surrounding area and other site constraints. This is supported. A further explanation of suggested density or yield for R24 is set out at Section 8 below. Policy HP05 - Affordable Housing: We note that the SHMA provides justification for the affordable housing requirements. However, it is questionable whether the precise tenure/mix should be set out at B(a) of the Policy, given that requirements can change relatively quickly over time and the prescriptive approach may not take into account precise local needs. As a consequence, it is recommended that the criteria under B(a) should omit the reference to 86% and 14% proportions. It is suggested, in the alternative, that "the mix, size, type and cost of affordable homes will meet the identified housing needs of the Council's area and local needs as appropriate, established by housing need assessments including the SHMA". Design and Place-making: The approach set out in the PSLP for design and place-making is broadly supported. However, we note that there are effectively seven policies (HP12 - HP18) which provide the requirements against these matters. We also note that there are some areas of repetition on some of the objectives against those policies. We consider that those commenting on and determining applications should preferably have one or two identified policies to refer to and/or applicable thresholds to more succinctly set out requirements. This would ensure that planning applications can be more effectively judged against context, design and place-shaping criteria. Natural Environment: We generally support the Council's approach to Green Belt and the identification of suitable sites to meet the Council's housing and other needs. Accompanying these representations is an overview of the Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity considerations relating to Stonebond's land interests at R23 and R24 to confirm the suitability of removing those sites from the Green Belt and limited impact on the landscape. Policy NE13 - Site Allocations in the Green Belt: We welcome the PSLP's intentions to remove sites R23 and R24 from the Green Belt. This calls into question the need for Policy NE13. The requirements set out by criterion A and B are dealt with by other policies in the Plan. If there are site specific requirements relating to sites, these should be covered within the specific policies relating to those sites. Policy R23 - Brizes Corner Field, Blackmore Road: The proposed allocation of Land off Blackmore Road as Policy R23 and its removal from the Green Belt is considered sound and is fully supported. It has been established through the evidence base supporting the PSLP that Kelvedon Hatch is a sustainable location to accommodate a modest amount of new houses to contribute to the Borough's housing needs. Indeed, as recognised by para 68 of the NPPF and as a medium sized site, such sites make an important contribution to "meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out quickly". We do however have some concerns with the amount of development set out at A of the Policy, the indicative yield at page 339 and the suggested trajectory for the site at Appendix 1. These representations provide for a modest increase in the developable area of the site with compensatory open space/structural landscaping. These matters are dealt with further below. Supporting these representations is a Vision Document at Appendix A, a review of Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity at Appendix B and a Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix C. These all confirm that the development at the site is both justified and fully deliverable within the terms of para 67a) of the NPPF. The Vision Document demonstrates that careful consideration has been given to the emerging policies set out at BE01, BE08, BE22, as well as those relating to Design and Place-making at HP12, HP13, HP14, HP15 and HP18 of the PSLP to confirm that a scheme can meet the PSLP objectives in this regard. The Summary Drainage and Utility Appraisal at Appendix B confirms that there are no constraints to delivery. In addition, Stonebond Properties commissioned a transport appraisal from Ardent Consulting Engineers. This has confirmed that the location of the access shown in the Vision Document meets normal highway requirements in terms of safety and visibility. This has been confirmed in speed surveys undertaken in Blackmore Road. The Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment at Appendix B confirms that the release of the site from the Green Belt is justified. It also confirms that there would be no significant impact on the surrounding landscape. Vision Document illustrates a form of development for the proposed allocation area set out in the PSLP to provide for around 28 homes. These representations suggest that the allocated area could increase to provide for a modest addition to the developable area in associate with compensatory open space and structural landscaping. It is considered that the proposals would be in accordance with para 138 of the NPPF. This advises local planning authorities to "set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be off set through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land". The Vision Document demonstrates how this can be achieved using land that is within their control. The Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Assessment confirms that such an approach would not result in demonstrable harm to the Green Belt or landscape. Part A of Policy R23 suggests that there be provision for around 23 new homes on the site. Part A Policy HP03 of the PSLP requires proposals to take a design led approach to density to ensure schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land. Part B expects development to achieve a net density of at least 35dph unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that such densities would be inappropriate. Based on page 339 of the PSLP, the suggested dwelling yield of 23 homes would result in a density of 29dph. The Vision Document confirms that within the allocated area it would be possible to provide around 28 homes at a density of 35dph. The Vision Document sets out an alternative approach to the allocation to increase the area to 2.45ha gross. This would provide for around 45 homes at 29dph on a net developable area of approximately 1.6ha. Critically, the Vision Document provides for a third of the area to be set aside for structural accessible open space in accordance with para 138 of the NPPF. The Vision Document therefore proposes that around 45 homes can be provided on the site representing a far more efficient and effective dwelling yield with benefits for open space and the Green Belt generally in this location by bringing forward a robust and enduring boundary. The Vision Document demonstrates that full account has been taken of the objectives of HP03 to ensure that a scheme would be sympathetic to local character. Critically, the illustrative scheme for the increased area for allocation would meet objectives for open space within the site in accordance with Policies HP13 and BE22 whilst taking into account the need for sensitivity, having regard to the countryside to the west and south. Section 4 of these representations sets out the need for greater flexibility and need for the provision of medium sized sites to aid the Council's housing needs and requirements. Against this background, these proposals to provide a modest increase to the allocated area for R23 are commended to the Council on the basis that the increased area provide for structural and accessible open space. It is therefore recommended that Policy R23 is amended as follows: Policy R23A - substitute 23 new homes with 45 new homes; Policy R23B - additional bullet point b - development shall provide for not less than 0.7ha for accessible public open space and structural landscaping; Page 339 R23 - indicative dwelling yield substitute 23 with 45. The site is within the control of Stonebond Properties, a local house builder with considerable experience in the development of medium sized sites, quick delivery and achieving high design and layout standards. Upon removal from the Green Belt and grant of a planning permission, it would be expected that development at the site could commence 2020/21 and be completed within two years of the Plan. As a consequence, and based on these representations for an increased allocation, it is recommended that the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory at Appendix 1 is amended to provide for the following based on an increased number of homes as set out in these representations: Year 5 2020/21 = 10 and Year 6 - 2021/22 = 35. These comments on Policy R23 provide an ability for a modest increase in the amount of houses for the allocated site with significant local benefits for accessible open space and structural landscaping. This would result in compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of Green Belt land in accordance with para 139 of the NPPF. In addition, the recommended changes would contribute to the issues we have identified elsewhere with the PSLP specifically in relation to the supply and delivery of homes generally. As a result, we trust that the Council will be able to agree modifications/changes accordingly.

These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Childerditch Properties for Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Consultation Local Plan (PSLP) and in particular, with regards to our client's land interest on the proposed allocation Childerditch Industrial Estate. Childerditch Properties request the right for Strutt & Parker or any other professional advisor acting on their behalf to provide further responses in Hearing Statements or at the relevant sessions of the Examination in Public following the submission of the PSLP. Childerditch Properties are the sole owners of Childerditch Industrial Estate. Representations have previously been made on their behalf in respect of the site throughout the Plan making process, including at the Call for Sites stage, as part of the 2013 Preferred Options Consultation and, most recently, as part of the 2018 Draft Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation. At present, the Estate provides some 35 units and between 700 and 800 people are employed here. All of these units are occupied and our clients continue to receive enquiries for occupation. The Estate therefore currently plays an important role in providing a significant source of the Borough's employment land and the provision of jobs. The proposed allocations provided for in the PSLP would build on the success of the Estate by creating new employment land. Located two miles from Brentwood on the A127, the Estate is ideally placed to offer future employment opportunities in a highly sustainable location with excellent transport links. Childerditch Industrial Estate is an 'island' site within the surrounding countryside, comprising a range of B1, B2 and B8 employment uses and storage yards. The proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate is referred within Policy E12 of the PSLP. The proposed allocation of additional employment land, in combination with the existing Park, will provide a developable area of approximately 20.6 hectares of employment land. Accompanying these representations is a proposed masterplan prepared by CMP Architects which, whilst indicative at this stage, demonstrates how the Estate can be more efficiently and effectively developed. This document is copied to these representations at Appendix 1. An updated Access Appraisal prepared by Journey Transport Planning is also submitted with these representations and is copied at Appendix 2. Within this document, consideration is given to the existing Estate and proposed allocations, and the cumulative traffic impacts arising from other developments in the A127 corridor. The Appraisal also considers the access from Childerditch Hall Drive onto the A127, to confirm that the proposed allocation of the site is deliverable in the context of the existing and proposed allocations referred to above. Childerditch Industrial Estate is located just to the north of the A127, approximately halfway between Junction 29 of the M25 to the west, and the junction of the A127 and A128 to the east. Other sites proposed for allocation within the PSLP also found along this section of the A127 include Brentwood Enterprise Park (Policy E11) and Land at Codham Hall Farm (Policy E10), which are located to the south and north of the A127 respectively. Given the stage of the PSLP, these representations focus on the soundness of the Plan, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 35 confirms that Plans are sound if they are positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy. The PSLP is supported by an evidence base that includes a number of technical studies. These representations give regard to both the Pre-Submission Document and these studies. The following section of these representations provide comment on draft policies, with particular regard to Policy E12, and other supporting text relevant to the proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate. Our client's overall position is one of firm support for the PSLP and this is expressed where relevant in these representations. Where concerns are raised in respect of PSLP or its evidence base, specific changes will be noted to assist Brentwood Borough Council in ensuring that the Plan is sound. Regulation 19 Consultation Pre-Submission Document Section 3: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives: The PSLP sets out the overarching aims of the Spatial Strategy, which includes an emphasis on 'Transit-orientated Growth'. This identifies two key transit corridors, including the 'Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor'. The PSLP focuses growth on land within the Borough's transport corridors, with strategic allocations along the A127 corridor for employment, which is justified given the aims and objectives of the Plan. The Council's strategy to direct development growth to the Borough's transport corridors is supported and has potential to provide for employment growth in locations where there is strong market demand, and to minimise environmental impacts on the wider Borough. The proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate will assist in meeting this objective, by bringing forward new business and employment opportunities along the A127 corridor. It will help support the planned residential growth within Borough. The Plan has been positively prepared in this respect. The Strategic Objectives identified within Section 3 of the PSLP are supported. Economic prosperity forms a key part of the objectives. In order to be considered sound, it is important the Plan is consistent with national policy, which seeks to enable the delivery of sustainable development. Strategic Objective SO1 seeks to direct development to the most sustainable locations and this links to the proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate. Strategic Objective SO3 supports opportunities that respond to the changing economic climate. Childerditch Industrial Estate is a traditional industrial estate that has developed over many years, as illustrated in the indicative proposed masterplan prepared by CMP Architects. It provides a mixture of B1, B2 and B8 uses across the site. The Estate will offer opportunities for a range of businesses seeking new premises within a highly sustainable location, which the A127 corridor offers through the proposed allocations. The indicative proposed masterplan sets out how the proposed allocation would allow for the redevelopment of the Estate and how this could come forward through a series of phased developments. This will be able to offer a number of units of varying sizes that would be suitable to a range of businesses, responding to the economic climate. The work undertaken by CMP Architects demonstrates how the Estate can be more efficiently and effectively developed, by providing a modern range of units for B1, B2 and B8 uses and associated infrastructure. Figure 3.1: Key Diagram: Figure 3.1 provides a visual aid in support of the Spatial Strategy. It identifies Junction 29 of the M25 as a key location for 'Employment-led development' (Brentwood Enterprise Park) and Childerditch Industrial Estate as a location for new 'Employment land', in addition to the strategic housing-led development at Dunton Hills and the redevelopment of West Horndon. A focus on employment growth along the A127 corridor will reduce the need for additional employment sites in less sustainable locations elsewhere in the Borough. This approach is fully supported and recognizes the importance of this location for new employment opportunities. This approach is justified and demonstrates that the Plan is consistent with national policy in this respect. Section 5: Resilient Built Environment: Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure: We support part C of Policy BE11, which states that the Council will continue to work with the Highway Authority, statutory bodies and key stakeholders to deliver improvements to the ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. Any future planning applications to be submitted in respect of new development at Childerditch Industrial Estate will be accompanied by the relevant transport studies. Paragraph 5.105: Paragraph 5.105 states that, within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, there is a recognition that provision of sustainable transport in this area is poor. Since the Draft Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation, the Council has published an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for the Borough. This includes, at Figure 3.14 of Chapter 3, a sustainable transport plan for the Southern Growth Corridor, which includes indicative locations for new cycle ways and a new bus route to connect Childerditch Industrial Estate, Brentwood Enterprise Park, Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon Industrial Estate (to be redeveloped). We support the principle of improving walking and cycling links within the land owned by our client, which extends to Little Warley Hall Lane. However, we would question the extent to which these new cycle ways could be delivered along the A127 corridor, as this would require every land owner to be committed to this initiative and an identification of funding. It is also not clear within the IDP who would be responsible for delivering this infrastructure improvement i.e. would this be the responsibility of Essex County Council, Brentwood Borough Council or landowners. This point needs to be clarified. In respect of the new bus route loop that is shown within the IDP at Childerditch Industrial Estate, whilst our client broadly supports the principle of a bus service at the Estate, they consider that the circulatory route shown within the IDP is too prescriptive and misleading, and at this stage, a broad arrow would be sufficient within the IDP. Details of how the Estate could be served can be dealt with as part of the iterative masterplan process. If a bus service from the A127 were to drop off/pick up were to be brought forward, our client could support this if the bus were to stop outside the Estate, turn and move back down Childerditch Hall Drive. Section 7: Prosperous Communities: This section of the PSLP confirms Brentwood Borough Council's Economic Strategy, which includes a number of Economic Aims and Strategic Priorities. These will help facilitate sustainable development, which is required to ensure that the Plan is sound. Paragraph 7.1 of the Plan recognises the importance of the Borough as being a high-quality environment within close proximity to London. The economic aims include the desire to encourage high value, diverse, employment uses that will provide a significant number of skilled and high-quality jobs; and to encourage the better utilisation, upgrading and redevelopment of existing land and buildings. These aims are supported and are reflected in the indicative proposed masterplan accompanying these representations. Childerditch Industrial Estate has a unique employment offer, insofar as it comprises a range of B1, B2 and B8 employment uses and storage yards. The proposed allocation provides the opportunity to build on the success of the Estate, by creating additional employment opportunities with a range of businesses. The proposed allocations will also enable the upgrading of the existing units on site through increased investment. The accompanying indicative proposed masterplan prepared by CMP Architects sets out how the redevelopment of the Estate could come forward through a series of phased developments. The development of The Range North (previously identified as site 112D in the Regulation 18 Consultation) as a first phase will assist with the provision of funding to begin the process of upgrading the existing units and infrastructure at the Estate, and provide for the ability for reinvestment to develop the proposed southern extension (previously identified as site 112E in the Regulation 18 Consultation). This redevelopment would ensure compliance with the Economic Aims of the PSLP. In addition to the Economic Aims, the PSLP sets out a number of Strategic Priorities. Of these, Strategic Policies P1 and P6 are strongly supported. P1 seeks to support business development and growth. P6 seeks to promote Brentwood Borough as a place to visit and invest, thereby encouraging the visitor economy. Childerditch Industrial Estate would assist in meeting those objectives. Policy PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land In determining the employment land allocations necessary to ensure that an adequate number of jobs can be provided, it is important that the Plan is sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change (as required by Paragraph 11 of the NPPF), and that it does so in a manner that ensures that the boundary of the Green Belt will not need to be reviewed before the end of the Plan period (Paragraph 136 of the NPPF refers). As set out within Paragraph 2.54 of the PSLP, 89% of the Borough lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. There is not sufficient land outside of the Green Belt for the Council to deliver the requisite level of housing and employment land. It is therefore necessary and justified to amend the boundary of the Green Belt as part of the Local Plan process. Paragraph 8.84 of the PSLP refers to the need to release land from the Green Belt in order to achieve the Council's growth strategy. This release has been carefully balanced to ensure that sustainable development can be achieved, whilst ensuring that the longer-term purpose, integrity and benefit of the Green Belt remains intact. We support the Council's approach insofar as our client's land interests are concerned and it is important to ensure that any changes to the Green Belt endure beyond the Plan period, having regard to its intended permanence, as required by Paragraph 136 of the NPPF. The PSLP is informed by an evidence base, including an assessment of the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) and the Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033 Report. The PSLP suggests a range of growth within the Borough, where at Paragraph 7.19(iv), it is stated that a range from 33.76 hectares to 45.96 hectares will be required. This includes land lost at existing allocations (i.e. at West Horndon). Childerditch Industrial Estate will therefore make a significant and important contribution towards the required land. It is well suited for businesses that may need to relocate as a result of sites that will come out of employment use to provide for housing. It is therefore considered the approach to Policy PC02 is justified in providing for 47.39 hectares of new employment land in excess of the higher forecasts; offering support for existing employment sites and the appropriate redevelopment of sites, to be able to adapt to rapid change and to remove the need for the Green Belt to be reviewed during the Plan period. The PSLP sets out the proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate can come forward over the next 1 to 10 years. The indicative proposed masterplan prepared by CMP Architects provides an illustrative approach as to how the proposed allocation could come forward in conjunction with the redevelopment of the existing Park. The land is available now and there are no overriding constraints to delivery. The Plan would be justified and effective in this respect. The Brentwood Economic Futures (2013-2033) Final Report sets out 4 scenarios for quantifying the potential requirement for jobs in order to support the growth of the Plan Period. The Report provides indicative job capacity figures, which have been based on assumptions, in terms of both site capacity and B1a/b, B1c/B2, and B8 split. (Refer to table in attached copy of full representation). In respect of Childerditch Industrial Estate however, the Report has not taken into account that the existing Park can be redeveloped in a more efficient and effective manner to provide more job growth, as provided for in these representations. Overall, the proposed allocation will enable the upgrading of the existing units on the site through increased investment. Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations: Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations that are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6 of the PSLP. This includes Childerditch Industrial Estate. However, the PSLP also includes a specific policy that relates to Childerditch Industrial Estate (Policy E12, which will be addressed later in these representations). Paragraph 7.23 of the PSLP states that due to the difficulties of accommodating the quantum of employment land within other parts of the Borough, the opportunity has been taken to capitalise on the strategic connections of the South Brentwood Growth Corridor by extending employment land around Childerditch Industrial Estate. This approach is considered to be justified and consistent with national policy, as the proposed allocation seeks to make efficient use of an existing, highly sustainable employment site. Proposed Modification: It is considered that greater clarification should be added to Paragraph 7.23, Part b. ii. on where Policy PC03 applies, as Policy E12 covers the entirety of Childerditch Industrial Estate. It should be added that the proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate allows for the redevelopment of the existing Estate and new development on the extended areas, which will provide a location for employment generating sui generis uses, as provided for by Policy E12. Policy PC05: Employment Development Criteria: Policy PC05 does not specify whether it applies to existing and/or new employment land. The policy simply refers to development for employment uses. The wording of Policy PC05 is therefore ambiguous and is more restrictive than the site specific policy for Childerditch Industrial Estate (Policy E12). For example, Policy E12 requires provision to be made for improved walking and cycling links within the surrounding area. Policy PC05 on the other hand states that employment uses will be encouraged provided that the proposal is accessible by public transport. At present, there are no public transport connections directly available to Childerditch Industrial Estate, and whilst this may change in the future, there is no guarantee of if and when this will happen. On this basis, we object to Policy PC05 in its current form as it would not allow for an effective Plan. Proposed Modification to Policy PC05: It is suggested that Policy PC05, Part A. a. be amended to state that proposals provide opportunities to be accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. At Childerditch Industrial Estate, opportunities are limited to provide public transport; however, in bringing forward proposals for the site, this issue can be reviewed with Brentwood Borough Council and Essex County Council. Section 8: Natural Environment Policy NE9: Green Belt: Policy NE9 is supported. The Council has recognised the need to release some land from the Green Belt in order to meet its housing and employment needs. However, the land that will remain within the Green Belt should be protected throughout the Plan period and Policy NE9 achieves this, in accordance with the NPPF. Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt: It is considered that Policy NE13 should be removed from the PSLP. The criteria of the policy can be included other policies, such as the site specific policy for Childerditch Industrial Estate (Policy E12), and it is therefore not considered necessary to have a standalone policy duplicating these points. Furthermore, it is queried why the policy refers to the benefits of housing sites only and no other land uses. Section 9: Site Allocations Policy E12: Childerditch Industrial Estate: Policy E12 is supported. We consider that it is justified, effective, consistent with national policy and necessary for the reasons set out elsewhere in these representations. Policy E12 proposes to allocate land that has previously been promoted at the Range North (site 112D) and the land to the south (site 112E), in addition to the existing Childerditch Industrial Estate, to provide a total developable area of 20.64 hectares across the entire Estate. The release of these sites from the Green Belt is justified and will ensure that the Plan has been positively prepared. At present, Childerditch Industrial Estate offers some 35 units. As part of the work supporting these representations, CMP Architects have undertaken an analysis of the Estate to identify how the existing Park could be regenerated for existing occupiers, redeveloped in areas to maximise efficiency, and expanded for future employment growth demand. The proposed masterplan at Appendix 1 provided for indicative purposes to support these representations, demonstrates the deliverability of the site over a period of time. The proposed allocations will extend the size of the Estate and as a whole, it is considered that it has the potential to accommodate around 50 units following redevelopment. The development of The Range North (site 112D) as a first phase will assist with the provision of funding to begin the process of upgrading the existing units and infrastructure at the Estate, which will ultimately lead to the development of the southern extension. This infrastructure will include an improved primary route through the core of the site and a number of secondary routes stemming from this to provide access to the different areas of the site. In addition to the work undertaken by CMP Architects, an Access Appraisal is submitted with these representations. The Appraisal at Appendix 2 confirms that the proposed allocation is deliverable in the context of the existing and proposed highway infrastructure, and will not have a significant impact on the efficiency or safety of the local transport network. The Appraisal also confirms that cumulatively, the allocation can be accommodated with other employment allocations along the A127 corridor, including those at Brentwood Enterprise Park and Codham Hall Farm. The PSLP, at Appendix 2, confirms a delivery forecast of 1 to 10 years. Following the adoption of the Local Plan and confirmation that the proposed allocations at Childerditch Industrial Estate are removed from the Green Belt, a planning application supported by a package of technical information will be submitted to Brentwood Borough Council for the first phase of development at The Range North. Further applications will then follow for the subsequent phases. It is very much expected that development will commence on site within the first few years of the Plan period, given the known demand as referred to at Paragraph 1.4 of these representations. We are in agreement that the entirety of the proposed allocations will be delivered within the 10 year period, which will ensure that the Plan is effective. Our clients purchased the site in 1983 and have a long term investment in the site and a desire to deliver the proposed allocations and enhancements to the existing site, as shown in the indicative proposed masterplan. In respect of Part B, criterion b) of Policy E12, we support the principle of improving walking and cycling links within the land owned by our client, which extends to Little Warley Hall Lane. However, we object to Part B, criterion c) of Policy E12, as it is not considered to be necessary. The Access Appraisal copied at Appendix 2 does not identify a need to improve the junction where the A127 meets Childerditch Hall Drive. The Access Appraisal confirms that the additional traffic created by the proposed allocation will not have an impact on the A127 junction because due to the length of the access from the A127, vehicles will not be delayed on entry. On exit from Childerditch Hall Drive onto the A127, any queuing will be held on site and therefore the increase in vehicles will not have an impact on the A127. Proposed Amendment to Policy E12: In light of the comments set out in the above paragraph, Part B, criterion b) should be removed from Policy E12. Sustainability Appraisal: A Sustainability Appraisal (SA), published in January 2019, has been produced by AECOM on behalf of Brentwood Borough Council in support of the PSLP. The SA forms only one part of the evidence base underlining the PSLP. The evidence base also includes documents such as the Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033 Report, Green Belt Study and Transport Assessment. In allocating additional land at Childerditch Industrial Estate, Brentwood Borough Council has taken a balanced judgement on the site constraints and the need to provide to create additional employment opportunities within the Borough. The SA is currently focused on a spatial approach to the assessment of each criterion, using the distance between the site and various factors to judge the extent to which it either achieves certain objectives or not. However, it is considered that the SA fails to fully consider the nature of each proposal or the likelihood in practice of effects in sustainability terms, where a 'broad brush' approach has instead been taken to sites regardless of their intended use. For example, in respect of distance to a GP Practice, the proposed employment allocations at Childerditch Industrial Estate have been scored in the same manner as a residential allocation. However, it is considered to be less important for an employment site to be located within close proximity to a GP practice than a residential site, given the nature of the uses. Therefore, Childerditch Industrial Estate should be considered against a different set of criteria more relevant to the proposed employment allocation. Provided below is an extract from the SA showing the scoring for the proposed allocations at Childerditch Industrial Estate. The proposed allocation includes Sites 112A, 112D and 112E. Site 112A relates to the existing allocation at the Estate. Site 112D relates to the proposed allocation at The Range North, and site 112E relates to the proposed southern extension allocation. (Refer to table in attached representation). On review of the appraisal of Childerditch Industrial Estate, the site has not scored particularly well in relation to the criteria that has data available. However, it is considered that the SA, or at least the sustainability criteria, could be too sensitive when it comes to assessing sites against the criteria. The fact that no site performed 'particularly well' against any of the criteria suggests that the scope of the assessment makes many sites appear unsustainable, with limited opportunity to score 'green' in many of the objectives. The NPPF, at paragraph 81, states that the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Paragraph 16 of the NPPF states that Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Paragraph 17 further adds that Local Plans should include strategic policies to deliver the homes and jobs needed in the area. Childerditch Industrial Estate is within a highly sustainable location, with excellent transport links in the form of the A127 and M25, which is a significant benefit to the occupiers of the site. The Estate is a successful employment site and the PSLP process provides a pragmatic response to the opportunity to build upon this success with further land being allocated. Indeed, as outlined above, the Council's own Spatial Strategy includes an emphasis on 'Transit-orientated Growth', which provides for new development along two key transit corridors in the Borough, including the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor. It is noted that sites 112A, 112D and 112E are presently scored 'amber' (performs poorly) under the Green Belt criterion. We do not consider that this aspect has been considered in sufficient detail by the SA given the particular circumstances of the site and existing uses. Childerditch Industrial Estate is visually contained by the surrounding agricultural land. We note that within the Green Belt Study Part II: Green Belt Parcel Definition and Review Document updated in November 2018, Green Belt Parcel 20, which the Childerditch Industrial Estate is excluded from, has been scored as making a moderate contribution to Green Belt purposes. As the existing site (112A) is excluded from the Green Belt, it is considered that this site should instead be considered to have 'no issue' in the SA assessment. There would be no loss of Green Belt land that would otherwise meet established purposes. The Green Belt Study recognises that the primary land use within the Parcel is arable farmland, but that the secondary land use is an industrial estate (Childerditch) set within the Parcel. The Estate is an 'island site' excluded from this Green Belt Parcel. The Study considers that views across the Parcel are limited, where field boundaries with dense hedgerows reduce visibility. Whilst the Study considers that undulating fields facilitate some views from the north, it is considered that views of Childerditch Industrial Estate will be limited from the north. The northern portion of the site is constrained by its topography, with some significant level changes and mature landscaping screening the existing buildings within the Estate. The northern most section of the Estate is only used as open storage and is also screened by existing woodland. These areas of the Estate form part of the existing allocation in any instance. The work undertaken by CMP Architects has given consideration to wider views of the Estate. The proposed allocations at sites 112D and 112E are currently located within the Green Belt. However, as part of the Council's review of the Local Plan, the opportunity exists to review Green Belt boundaries, in accordance with paragraphs 138 and 139 of the NPPF. At paragraph 138 of the NPPF for example, it states that, when drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. As part of the new Local Plan, the fringes of the existing Childerditch Industrial Estate can be released to provide a necessary and important contribution to employment land within the Borough within a highly sustainable location. Furthermore, it is considered that the areas proposed for allocation, adjacent to an existing employment site, are sequentially more appropriate than other sites in the Borough that currently have no employment use. This supports the Council's growth strategy, which requires land to be released from the Green Belt, and is therefore justified. The release of land has therefore been carefully considered taking all factors into account, to ensure that sustainable development can be achieved, whilst ensuring that the longer-term purpose, integrity and benefit of the Green Belt remains intact. The Childerditch Industrial Estate sites have additionally been scored 'amber' with regard to effect on agricultural land, with the methodology stating that any site in land classified as Grade 3 will be 'amber' and Grade 2 will be 'red'. While the assessment notes that the dataset used is of poor resolution, the assessment has failed to adequately consider the existing nature of the sites (with particular regard to site 112D), as well as differentiate between Grades 3a and 3b. We would consider that the criteria should be amended to be more in line with the aims of Government policy, and that the sites be assessed on the basis of whether their use for employment purposes would lead to the loss of the best of the best and most versatile land. Furthermore, if the locally defined employment requirement is to be met, building on agricultural land is necessary. The fact that no site performed 'particularly well' (scoring 'dark green') in any of the criteria, also suggests that the scope of the assessment was not sensitive to acknowledge the competing objectives of national and local policy, particularly that in the Green Belt, to meet needs for employment and other development. Ultimately, it is important to note that the SA, at paragraph 9.6.6 states that "... there is a strategic opportunity to develop the A127 corridor as an employment growth corridor, capitalising on connections to key economic centres in the region (including Tilbury Port, Southend Airport and those in Greater London). All sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network". Furthermore, at paragraph 9.6.7, it is stated that "... With regards to site specific policy, the policies for the four employment should support timely and effective delivery". We support this view and will continue to take a proactive approach regarding promotion of and extension to Childerditch Industrial Estate through to the adoption of the new Local Plan, including attending the relevant Hearing Sessions at the Examination in Public. Summary: The PSLP confirms that the Spatial Strategy substantially focuses on 'Transit-orientated growth', including the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, with strategic allocations along the A127 corridor for employment, which is supported. The proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate is a recognition of the role that the Estate has in providing employment for the Borough. The proposed allocation would assist in meeting Brentwood Borough Council's identified need, to provide employment land required to assist meeting the Strategic Objectives of the PSLP Plan for the Plan period. The Estate is ideally located along the A127 to provide excellent transport links for the businesses operating at the Estate, and this is reflected in the full occupation rate of the existing units. There is a strong market for additional units in this location. The proposed allocations at The Range North and the southern extension will provide additional land to build on the success of the existing Estate. This submission demonstrates how the Estate can be more efficiently and effectively developed, by providing a modern range of units for B1, B2 and B8 uses and associated infrastructure. In conclusion, we strongly support the proposed allocation at Childerditch Industrial Estate, as set out in the PSLP, and will continue to promote the Estate as the Plan progresses to Examination in Public, in consultation with Brentwood Borough Council and key stakeholders. We consider that the Plan is generally sound; however, we do object to two policies in their current form. These are Policies PC05 and E12, as set out at paragraphs 2.23 - 2.25 and 2.34 - 2.35 of these representations. However, within these representations, we have also set out suggested amendments to these policies that we consider would make the plan sound.