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

Using the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence, the Plan should select sites
within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor that provide opportunity for extensions to towns and villages that can encourage more sustainable travel choices and take advantage of the superior infrastructure available. This should help encourage commuting behaviour to shift away from private car use and therefore make this location a more sustainable and viable option to concentrate growth. Chapter 3 should be modified as a result along with all land use allocations in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.

This letter serves as the approved response from Basildon Borough Council to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan Regulation 19 public consultation.
Please be advised that for all of the consultation points below, the Council would like to attend the future oral hearings as part of the Plan's Examination in Public.
As a neighbouring authority, a Duty to Cooperate public body and a key partner in the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA), Basildon Borough Council has taken the opportunity to review and consider the potential implications for the Basildon Borough that may arise from Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan and determine whether it considers it to be compliant with necessary legislation and whether it meets the tests of soundness.
1) Is the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 legally compliant?
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 and supporting documents. It considers that whilst it disagrees with aspects of the Plan from a soundness perspective that it is however legally compliant.
2) Does the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meet the tests of soundness?
The Council does not believe that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meets the tests of soundness in all of its policy areas. It therefore makes the following 1 representation in support of an aspect of the Plan and 17 representations where it considers the Local Plan is unsound and requires modifications to make it sound.
Supporting Representations
Consultation Point: Chapter 1
Soundness - Effectiveness & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, it considers that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere. To demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, strategic policy-making authorities should
planning.policy@brentwood.gov.uk
SERVED BY EMAIL ONLY
prepare and maintain one or more Statements of Common Ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these.
A major step forward for effective cooperation has been the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Essex County, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Councils to form the ASELA. This has ensured that there is now a more coordinated, collective working on a 'place vision' for the sub region, which recognises one of the key delivery tools will be a statutory Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). A Statement of Common Ground has also been agreed between the ASELA to ensure it is embedded into the Local Development Schemes of all the local planning authorities with resources committed to its preparation during 2019/2021. This will ensure it sets the foundations for planning at a broader spatial level, determining how growth and infrastructure can be better coordinated to positively influence place-making in South Essex and provide a more prosperous area for people to live, work, study and visit. The Statement of Common Ground recognises that the planning landscape of South Essex is not perfect and not all authorities can wait for the JSP to be completed before their Local Plans are advanced. It accepts that the JSP will have to be mindful, in particular of Basildon, Brentwood and Castle Point's and the reality that their Local Plans are already too advanced to be paused.
The Council has noted Brentwood Council's commitment in paragraph 1.13 to work as a member of ASELA on a process to develop a long-term growth ambition that would underpin strategic spatial, infrastructure and economic priorities across the wider sub-region. It is acknowledged that this is in accordance with the South Essex JSP Statement of Common Ground - June 2018; of which Basildon and Brentwood Borough Councils are one of the seven joint signatories.
Work on the JSP is at an early stage with Regulation 18 consultation due to take place during 2019, followed by Regulation 19 in 2020, with examination in public and adoption not expected to be until 2020/2021. It will cover a longer plan period extending to 2038; slightly longer than both the Basildon and Brentwood Local Plans. Paragraph 1.38 of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan references that its own allocations can contribute towards some of the delivery of early growth during the JSP plan-period; a position that is also applicable for the soon to be submitted Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034. It is welcomed that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan has mirrored the intent of the Basildon Borough Local Plan in Paragraphs 1.35-1.38 that following the adoption of the JSP, it may be necessary to review the Plan, at least in part, to ensure any opportunities for additional growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough, that may otherwise be additionally identified in the JSP, can be realised. The Council fundamentally supports this policy approach as meeting the soundness tests of being a) effective and b) in accordance with national policy.
The Council considers this to be compatible to its own position and underpins the collective efforts to get an "effective mechanism" in place to address strategic, cross boundary matters in a more holistic and planned manner that has greater potential to realise positive outcomes to South Essex communities. Looking ahead, the Council embraces the opportunity presented by Brentwood Borough Council being part of the ASELA and the JSP, in order to tackle strategic, cross-boundary matters holistically to ensure sustainable growth solutions are achieved that benefit all communities.
Objecting Representations
Consultation Point: Whole Plan
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. The Council, as a neighbouring Borough and Duty to Cooperate body, has reviewed and considered previous versions of the Local Plan and its preparatory documents and submitted relevant representations under Regulation 18 consultations. The Council formally wishes to express its disappointment that given fundamental
evidence has been 'in development', but not published during much of its preparation. It has been significantly difficult, therefore, to digest the Plan's rationale and approach as it has evolved. This includes the entire Green Belt Review, Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study, Local Plan Viability Assessment and Transport Assessment which were not published until the month before Brentwood Council considered the Publication Local Plan in November 2018. It is accepted that not all evidence can be completed by each consultation stage and much may remain as a continual draft until Regulation 19, however it is considered this has created a lack of transparency during critical plan-making stages and contributed to the scale of representations from Basildon Council for its Regulation 19 response.
During 2017/2018, officers from Basildon, Thurrock and Essex County Councils, facilitated by an officer from Rochford District Council, jointly sought to understand and address with Brentwood Borough Council how the Brentwood Borough Local Plan, in particular the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) strategic allocation, could impact on neighbouring authority areas, particularly in terms of infrastructure and service provision. Meetings were held, and correspondence exchanged, in an effort to seek solutions and resolutions to previous Regulation 18 objections/ observations from all three Councils. The intention was to appreciate the evidenced rationale for identifying the DHGV strategic allocation and ensuring neighbouring authorities could engage more effectively to identify and manage cross-boundary impacts. Despite this engagement, it is considered that not all information and assurances sought from Brentwood Borough Council have been provided and this brings into question the soundness of the rationale and choices made in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan.
.
As such, all of Basildon Council's previous responses to Regulation 18 consultations are enclosed as supplementary evidence to the Regulation 19 consultation; affirming that many of the comments made in respects this consultation response have been raised previously, but remain unanswered or inadequately addressed. It is uncertain how the Plan has been informed by this previous input. It is considered that this is not a justified approach and has resulted in a Plan which is less effective at tackling strategic, cross-boundary issues.
Consultation Point: SP02: Managing Growth, Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is acknowledged that Brentwood Borough Council commissioned David Couttie Associates (DCA) in 2013 to undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and define its Housing Market Area (HMA). This concluded that Brentwood Borough's administrative area was a self-contained HMA. This is different to the Basildon Borough, which is a sub-area (with Castle Point) of the much larger South Essex HMA, which also incorporates Rochford, Southend on Sea and Thurrock. The Brentwood SHMA, which was most recently updated in November 2018, forms part of the evidence base for identifying the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing in Brentwood Borough. However, NPPF/2019 (published after the Publication Local Plan was approved by Brentwood Borough Council in November 2018, in February 2019) now requires housing needs to be calculated in accordance with the Standard Methodology set out in national Planning Practice Guidance.
Basildon Borough Council has acknowledged that this has seen the OAN for Brentwood Borough change three times over the course of the last year as follows:
* In January 2018, the Brentwood SHMA January 2018 identified an OAN for Brentwood of 380. This was calculated using the SHMA Planning Practice Guidance that underpinned the NPPF/2012;
* In July 2018, NPPF/2018 was launched introducing the standard methodology for calculating objectively assessed housing need. The standard methodology requires the use of the most recently published household projections as the starting point. At that time, the 2014-based CLG Household Projections formed that starting point resulting in an OAN for Brentwood of 452 homes per annum; and
* In September 2018, 2016-based ONS Household Projections were published, revising the starting point for the standard method calculation. For Brentwood Borough, these projections showed a reduced rate of household growth going forward, resulting in a reduced housing requirement for Brentwood of 350 homes per annum.
It has been noted by Basildon Council that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan uses this latest 2016 projection to define the minimum OAN target.
The reduced rate of household growth in the 2016-based ONS Household Projections was highlighted as a nation-wide issue driving down the OAN calculations in around two-thirds of authorities, although not Basildon. This resulted in the standard methodology only identifying around 215,000 homes per annum supply for England against a national policy target of 300,000 homes per annum. Consequently, in October 2018 MHCLG launched a consultation on technical changes to the standard methodology, seeking for authorities to continue using the 2014-based CLG Household Projections in the interim. On the 19 February 2019, the Government's response to this consultation was published indicating that the Government will be making clear in national Planning Practice Guidance that the 2016-based ONS Household Projections should not be used for the standard methodology calculation, and the 2014-based CLG Household Projections should be used instead.
The Brentwood Local Plan therefore, which makes provision for 456 homes per annum does meet just over its full OAN for housing, having regard to the standard methodology calculation of need based on the 2014 CLG Household Projections (452 homes per annum), as explained in required by Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220 and Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2a-005-20190220) that has been adjusted following the Government's response to the technical consultation.
The Brentwood Local Plan, however, as drafted and approved by Brentwood Council in November 2018, sets out in Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 that the housing target for Brentwood is set at 350 homes per annum and it proposes an annual housing supply buffer of 20% taking total supply of 456 homes per annum. This was considered at the time as offering additional flexibility throughout the plan period. This is now not the case as the 2016-based ONS Household Projections must be discounted, as above, with the baseline reverting to the 2014-based projections. This results in a Plan which will now have an insignificant flexibility in its land supply; a component which was considered justified and fundamental to the Plan's strategy when it was approved in November 2018.
When this new position is viewed alongside the variable housing target, it is considered this could cause the plan to be less effective and justified. The initial housing target of 310 homes per annum between 2016 and 2023, should, according to the Plan, increase to 584 homes per annum beyond 2023. It is noted that this increase is substantially reliant on the new Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, which according to the Housing Trajectory set out in Appendix 1 is expected to commence housing delivery in 2023/24, within the first five years of the Plan. That scheme is expected to deliver at the initial ambitious rate of 100 homes per annum upwards from thereon, reaching 300 homes per annum by 2026. These are considered to be overly optimistic delivery assumptions for such a large scale Green Belt allocation, which whilst mostly in a single land ownership that could facilitate delivery, still requires for the boundaries of the Green Belt to be amended on adoption of the Plan (assuming it is found lawful and sound), detailed masterplanning, essential infrastructure programming on-site and off-site to ensure sustainable development can be achieved. It is not clear from any published evidence how such a delivery rate has been formulated having acknowledged these issues and therefore this is challenged in terms that it is not justified.
Summary: As a result in the change to the NPPF, the Plan also now has very little flexibility within its land supply should anything happen to cause delivery of homes to become delayed during the plan period; which was a fundamental principle to the Plan's strategy approved in November 2018. There is an unjustified over-reliance on DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor to
contribute towards supply at an accelerated rate. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Modification: 1) The Local Plan must be adjusted to incorporate previously discounted development sites, particularly in the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor to restore the flexibility in site supply across a broader range of spatial locations, thereby improving the Plan's effectiveness and deliverability. 2) The methodology to the Local Plan's Housing Trajectory needs to be published and open for comment and challenge of its assumptions.
Consultation Point: PC02 and PC03
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF establishes that planning policies should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. The Council notes the new employment land requirements and job growth needs evidence undertaken by Lichfields in 2018. It is considered the amount of new employment land being provided is broadly sufficient to ensure that the Brentwood Borough meets its overall forecast employment land needs, including forecast new needs and losses from allocations and structural change.
It is considered however that the policy makes the assumption that there are no capacity issues for existing infrastructure, or any needs for supporting infrastructure to be provided and it is considered that this lack of clarity will make the policy ineffective, unjustified and will counteract creating conditions to support business growth which the NPPF seeks. As the Local Plan does with its housing target in Policy SP02 and Appendix 1, PC02 and PC03 should therefore incorporate additional provisions to manage the release and expansion of the locations within the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, supported by an Employment Land Trajectory in a new Appendix, to make it more effective, justified and consistent with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC02 and PC03.
Modifications: PC02 and PC03 should be amended to incorporate a staggered delivery target for new employment land, supported by a new Employment Land Trajectory within the Plan's Appendices, to coordinate the phased release of new and expanded employment land to ensure it can be linked to specific and necessary upgrades to supporting infrastructure. This will minimise the impact growth will have on existing highway routes in particular, which could otherwise impact on cross-boundary issues within the wider South Essex economic corridor.
Specialist Accommodation
Consultation Point: HP07
Soundness - Effectiveness
The Council has noted that the Brentwood Gypsy and Traveller Local Needs Accommodation Assessment 2018 (GTAA) assessed the need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Brentwood Borough for the period 2016 to 2033 as being 13 pitches. It acknowledges that there were no Travelling Showpeople identified as living in the Brentwood Borough, so there are no current or future accommodation needs for this community.
The evidence is noted as identifying a requirement of 11 additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches (5 total current need and 6 total future need) to be developed between the period 2016 to 2033 and makes a further 10% allowance for Gypsy and Traveller households whose travelling status was recorded as being "unknown", increasing the need to 12 pitches. It is acknowledged that since the completion of the evidence, one Gypsy and Traveller pitch has been lost through an approved change of use application and to replace this lost pitch, the Plan has added an additional pitch to its target, meaning the total requirement of Gypsy and Traveller pitches is 13 pitches.
Whilst it is noted that Brentwood Council proposes to meet this need through the incorporation of
a minimum 5 Gypsy and Traveller pitches as part of the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation and through the regularisation of 8 existing pitches elsewhere in the Brentwood Borough. This however implies that 8 pitches will contribute towards meeting current need and only 5 pitches towards future need, when 6 are in fact required. The Council therefore objects to Policy HP07.
Modification: The GTAA identified the need for an additional pitch to meet future needs and therefore whilst the Policy HP07 quotes a minimum of 5 new pitches to be provided within its minimum target, the Plan could be more effective by setting 6 pitches as the target.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Positively Prepared & Effectiveness.
The Council is concerned that there is no acknowledgement in the supporting text to the Brentwood Local Plan as to how it will address any unmet needs arising from Greater Essex authorities for the provision of accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople should it arise. The Plan should therefore recognise and support the principle of this approach going forward, to ensure that there will be a technical approach in place to support any neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need. This will ensure that the same process is applied throughout Essex therefore making the plan more positively prepared and effective for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Essex Planning Officers' Association Protocol for Unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Needs 2018 has been developed collaboratively across Essex under the Duty to Cooperate, including with Brentwood Borough Council. It should be referenced in the supporting text to Policy HP07 - within Paragraphs 6.52-6.62. This will help ensure that the Plan recognises and supports the principle of this approach going forward, underling the technical approach in place to support how any requests from neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling will be considered in the future and then addressed as necessary through the Plan review process.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Effectiveness and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 9 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) establishes that "...local planning authorities should set pitch targets...which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities." There is also no mention however in the Brentwood Local Plan of the strategic and cross-boundary matter of Transit Sites, for which there is a study underway during 2019/2020 by the Essex Planning Officers' Association on behalf of all Greater Essex local planning authorities, including Brentwood Borough. Whilst it has not yet been possible to robustly assess the need for transit sites in Essex due to data inconsistencies across Greater Essex, changes have been made to the unauthorised encampment data collection process and an update to Essex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Local Needs Accommodation Assessment will follow during 2019/2020 to determine whether any transit sites are needed in Greater Essex to help manage development pressures.
Whilst this cannot be included within Policy HE07 due to uncertainty, given that it is a current strategic matter for the Duty to Cooperate, with work in train to seek a resolution, it is considered more effective, for the Plan as a whole, to indicate how any such needs identified in future updates to the GTAA will be dealt with to make it more effective and consistent with the PPTS. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Council considers the Local Plan would be more effective and more consistent with the PPTS if the strategic, cross-boundary issue of transit sites, covered by the Duty to
Cooperate were to be supported by a new paragraph explaining the context behind the issue and that it will be addressed as part of its first review.
Consultation Point: PC08 and Figure 7.7
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes that Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners prepared a Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (RCLS14) for Brentwood Council in 2014. The study identifies that Brentwood Town Centre as the main shopping centre in Brentwood Borough, with Shenfield, Ingatestone and Warley Hill providing smaller scale District Centres offering more local services, whilst smaller communities are supported by a number of village shops/local parades. The relationship between Brentwood Town Centre and larger competing centres including Basildon Town Centre is also noted, which is consistent with the Council's own evidence set out in the South Essex Retail Study 2017.
It is also acknowledged however that the Local Plan's settlement hierarchy proposes that DHGV Village and West Horndon will incorporate District Centres, similar in scale and role to Shenfield and Ingatestone. Figure 7.7 suggests this will apply to just DHGV, but caveats that this may change as a result of masterplanning or new evidence. Whilst the Council accepts that some form of local centre provision that could provide local shopping, community facilities and healthcare facilities would be a sustainable approach to the planning of any new community, helping to reduce the need to travel to larger centres to meet community needs, the positioning of the Garden Village needs to consider how it could impact on other centres and facilities in the locality, including those outside the Brentwood Borough, which may be closer and higher-order than other Brentwood Borough alternatives.
The Council cannot determine from any of Brentwood's published evidence as to what assessments have been carried out to determine the likely impact of installing new District Centres in West Hordon or DHGV on Basildon Borough's Laindon Town Centre. Assuming a central location within the site, DHGV District Centre would be around 2km to its west and West Hordon is only one stop by rail. Laindon Town Centre is the Basildon Borough's smallest town centre, which is currently undergoing a multi-million pound regeneration by Swan Housing Association to redevelop it into a new mixed use commercial and residential development called Laindon Place. It already provides a health centre, community centre, police station and library, which are all set to remain.
It is not considered acceptable as set out in footnote 10 to Figure 7.7 that the "the designation of the DHGV service centre(s) as a District Shopping Centre and/or Local Centre(s) and any subsequent Primary Shopping Area could be altered further by the South Brentwood Masterplan as this should remain a function of policy and not be delegated. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC08 and Figure 7.7.
Modification: Footnote 10 of Figure 7.7 should be amended to remove reference to the South Brentwood Masterplan as the role and order of the designated centre should be established by policy only. The Plan should have been informed by evidence which has tested cross-boundary impacts of installing new District Centres in close proximity to nearby centres including Laindon Town Centre and what measures will be taken in policy to limit any impact. If this evidence does not exist, the District Centre should be removed from DHGV, retaining some local centre provision to ensure DHGV can be sustainable and to enable the Plan to be effective and justified.
Consultation Point: Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Local Plan's Spatial Strategy is termed "Transit-orientated Growth", concentrating growth in the Local Plan in two transit corridors running through the borough. The 'Central Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the
A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street Station, and the Elizabeth Line; and the 'Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
The Local Plan states that the site selection process for the housing allocations has been based upon the Spatial Strategy, and a sequential approach to selecting sites for development. It is accepted that this approach is intended to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within compatible locations.
The Council acknowledges that Brentwood Borough Council has now published much of its previously missing evidence as set out in previous Regulation 18 representations. The Council is not satisfied that the Plan has been adequately informed by its evidence, and it questions whether the Spatial Strategy reached is therefore justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted the two Growth Corridors. It has reflected however that there are fundamental distinctions between them, which do not appear to have influenced site selection choices in a justified way. The Central Brentwood Growth Corridor is the location of nationally and regionally managed and maintained infrastructure - the A12 & M25 (Highways England) and Elizabeth Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Transport for London) and East Anglia Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Abellio East Anglia), which helps to put this investment into use through the growth locations. The South Brentwood Growth Corridor, whilst at its far west includes the M25, the remainder of the corridor consists the A127 (maintained by Essex County Council) and Essex Thameside Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by c2c). It is not considered they offer comparable choices in terms of the capacity of these transport connections and the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, by the presence of nationally and regionally maintained infrastructure.
In reviewing the appropriateness of the Spatial Strategy, an important element of the Plan's Sustainability Appraisal involves appraising 'reasonable alternatives' to inform development of the Plan. Four reasonable site alternatives in the Central Brentwood Corridor have been disregarded (AECOM Sustainability Apprial - Table 5.2), despite having few constraints and being able to tap into the potential for movement capacity offered by this superior corridor. This is considered to be in conflict with sustainable development when sites which have significant constraints to development or delivery have been included within the Plan, at the expense of sites which have fewer constraints. This raises fundamental concerns about the Plan's spatial distribution of growth and whether it has made the most of the capacity in this alternative corridor, before embarking on a new standalone settlement at DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor. The Council has noted that four sites on Table 5.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal have the potential to deliver 2,200 homes through extensions to villages, thereby questioning the need for a new settlement of the scale envisaged to deal with growth in the plan-period, which it considers means the Spatial Strategy is unjustified. The Council therefore objects to Chapter 3, the Sustainability Appraisal and land use allocations in Chapter 6 and 7.
Modification: Using the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence, the Plan should select sites within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor that provide opportunity for extensions to towns and villages that can encourage more sustainable travel choices and take advantage of the superior infrastructure available. This should help encourage commuting behaviour to shift away from private car use and therefore make this location a more sustainable and viable option to concentrate growth. Chapter 3 should be modified as a result along with all land use allocations in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
Consultation Point: Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. The Council challenges whether the Sustainability Appraisal has informed the choices made in the Spatial Strategy as
required by national policy, given it states that there was an early intention by Brentwood Council to deliver at least one new large-scale strategic site, which could be judged as artificially limiting the exploration of other plausible and deliverable urban/ village extensions. It is considered that Brentwood Council's lack of a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) between 2011 and 2018 has negatively impacted upon previous Regulation 18 drafts, which could have evolved differently having been informed by such evidence, demonstrating that other suitable, available and deliverable site options were present. This is unjustified, not consistent with the Plan's Strategic Objective SO1 and not in accordance with the NPPF. The Council therefore objects to the Sustainability Appraisal.
Modification: The Sustainability Appraisal should be reviewed to test an alternative strategy which does not include the artificial assumption that at least one new large scale strategic site should be incorporated into the Local Plan and then it should be amended accordingly. The Plan should then be reviewed informed by the outcome.
Consultation Point: BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) accompanying the Local Plan. It is acknowledged that this is intended to be a 'live' working document, much the same as the Basildon Borough IDP.
Paragraph 5.105 acknowledges that in respects of the South Brentwood Growth Corridor "...the provision of sustainable transport in this area is poor". The Council considers that it is surprising therefore that there are no specific highway mitigation measures provided in the Plan, just a statement that "the Council will work proactively with developers, key stakeholder and service providers to implement...new measures which would seek to mitigate transport impacts of sites on the highway infrastructure...". Whilst it is acknowledged within the Plan of the joint working being undertaken by ASELA, and the A127 Task Force for the Route Management Strategies and Joint Strategic Plan, both of which are supported by Basildon Council. The Council does however consider that highway modelling should have been tested to determine impact in development locations in Brentwood Borough, so it can be clear in policy terms how negative impacts are being mitigated and therefore prove that the Plan's spatial choices are reasonable in sustainability terms. It is questionable whether it can be adequately demonstrated by the Brentwood Local Plan that the allocations chosen, represent the most sustainable option without identifying and testing the viability of specific highway mitigation measures that will be necessary to make them deliverable and sustainable. Without this work, Brentwood Borough could find its ability to unlock the capacity to deliver new communities and homes, particularly at an accelerated pace as suggested in Appendix 1, becomes hindered by a lack of infrastructure capacity and outline solutions to overcome them. It is not considered that Policy BE11 is therefore effective at delivering the Plan's Strategic Objectives.
It is noted that Paragraph 5.106-5.107 acknowledges the Lower Thames Crossing and the outline concept of its preferred route and that it is not expected to have a direct impact on Brentwood Borough in terms of land safeguarding. It is however suggested that the Plan also acknowledges that following the engagement of authorities in Essex, including Basildon Borough Council, Highways England has accepted that its impact modelling was deficient in determining how driver behaviour in South Essex and further afield could alter when the scheme opens. This is particularly an issue for this Plan, as its includes land allocations in West Horndon and the DHGV along the A127 corridor, which will be within a reasonable proximity to the Lower Thames Crossing and could therefore be impacted by it. It should be recognised that Highways England are now taking steps to incorporate growth proposals set out in Local Plans in the vicinity to address this point and identify any measures needed to the scheme or nearby routes to mitigate any adverse impacts. The Council therefore objects to Policy BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106.
Modification: 1) BE11 and the land allocations should have been informed by highway modelling that tests highway mitigation solutions to mitigate impact caused by development. This work should be repeated and the Plan amended in light of its findings.
2) Paragraph 5.106 should be amended to include reference that local authorities have secured additional testing within the Lower Thames Crossing modelling being undertaken by Highways England to determine the extent of local impacts on the road network arising from Local Plan growth.
Consultation Point: R01 & HP01
Soundness - Justified
The DHGV is within close proximity of the administrative boundaries with Basildon & Thurrock Boroughs and it is considered that there may be implications for the future geographical extent of both the Brentwood and South Essex Housing Market Areas as the housing markets evolve.
Furthermore, the policy requirements of the Plan are informed by data collected from Brentwood Borough, or its population; the significant majority of which is located away from this area to the north. Consequently, there is a difference in what might be delivered in DHGV compared to what could be delivered just slightly to the east in Basildon Borough; which might distort the housing markets as they adjust to the new development taking place around the boundary. The following table has been prepared using Figure 6.1 from the Plan and the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment that has informed the Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034 and it is considered both these SHMA's should instead be used to inform the housing mix policy for DHGV. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01 and HP01.
Modification: It is considered the stark contrast between the house size requirements for Basildon and Brentwood in DHGV, which is on a boundary location, means it needs to have taken into account the South Essex SHMA in determining the housing mix for DHGV so that it can better sit within the landscape of the strategic context of South Essex, which is not reflective of the wider Brentwood Borough HMA. Policy HP01 and R01 should be amended in light of this.
Consultation Point: R01(D)(h)
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted that Policy R01(D)(h) has set a target to retain 50% of the strategic allocation for green and blue infrastructure. Given the location is over 259ha, it is agreed that this helps enshrine the Garden Community values within the policies which will guide the masterplan and the site's development. However, the Council questions whether this is intended to be a permanent resource, given it also determines that a further 2,300 homes could be brought forward in the strategic location after 2033; taking its indicative total to around 4,000 homes. It is considered that if it is not explained clearly in any published evidence, as to whether any of the retained space for green and blue infrastructure would need to be used to meet this higher development scale after 2033. The Council's understanding of this, is frustrated by a lack of published evidence on DHGV, which would enable Basildon Borough to effectively understand the nature, extent and potential implications (positive or negative) of its proposals for DHGV. This would make the policy more justified and compliant with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(D)(h).
Modification: Clarify within R01 and its supporting text whether the Green Infrastructure proposed to amount to 50% of the land area is a permanent resource or whether the projected growth in the area beyond the plan-period would need to utilise any of the green infrastructure for growth. If the latter, the percentage should be adjusted accordingly.
Consultation Point: SP02, R01 and Paragraph 8.83-8.84
Soundness - Justified
The Council welcomes the publication of the Brentwood Borough Green Belt Study 2018. It is acknowledged that this comprises two parts; Part 1 is a full Green Belt assessment parcelling up the Green Belt and Part 2 as a separate site assessment of individual sites promoted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). This is a similar format to the Basildon Borough Green Belt Study.
For Part 1, a scale of high - low was used to assess the contribution 70 separate parcels made to the Green Belt. The DHGV parcel (17) score "Moderate - High". It was one of 21 parcels to score "Moderate - High". 19 parcels scored "High". The remainder scored lower.
In respect of the tests, Parcel 17 was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Important
countryside gap between settlements (amber)
Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with a historic town. (green)
The Council does not consider it to be clear however, from the published methodology, as to why having scored highly in relation to the Purpose 1 and Purpose 3, as to why this parcel is assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when there are other parcels which make high contributions towards two of the purposes have been assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes; and are therefore valued to a greater degree as serving towards the purpose of Green Belt.
In respects of Part 2 assessment, the DHGV allocation (Site 200) was assessed alongside other HELAA sites. A total of 92 sites were assessed. The DHGV site assessment matches the entire Parcel 17 assessed in Part 1. Five sites were assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes. A further 18 sites were assessed as making a "moderate to high contribution". Site 200 - 'Entire land east of A128, south of A127' was assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution. The remaining 69 sites were assessed as making a less significant contribution to Green Belt purposes.
The DHGV site was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Would result in significant separation reduction (amber)
* Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
* Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with historic town (green)
The outcomes of Part 2 are considered to be consistent with Part 1. However, it is not clear from the methodology as to why given the site scored highly in relation to Purpose 1 and Purpose 3,
this parcel is then assessed as only making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when it could potentially have been assessed as making a "high" contribution for those reasons.
The Council recognise that there is now, no longer an issue with missing evidence in this regard, which it had repeatedly raised in previous Regulation 18 consultation responses. However, the Council considers that the issue now is one of how the Green Belt evidence has informed the Plan. It is not clear how the policy judgements arrived at have considered that development in this strategic gap, which helps prevent settlement coalescence can be adequately mitigated. The Council does not believe that when accounting for this evidence that the Plan has reached a justified position in respects of whether the Green Belt evidence has informed the Local Plan policies, to the degree which the proposals in the DHGV area are set out. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, R01 and Paragraphs 8.83-8.84.
Modification: The Plan should demonstrate in more detail, through a tool such as a Topic Paper, how its site selection choices have been informed by the Green Belt Study 2018 and should any inconsistencies occurs the Plan's land use allocations and justification should be changed.
Consultation Point: Paragraph 9.36 and R01(II)
Soundness - Justified & Effective
Brentwood Council will be aware from joint Duty to Cooperate meetings with elected members and officers that during 2017, efforts were made by both Basildon and Brentwood Councils to determine whether a West Basildon urban extension could be delivered in the Basildon Borough Local Plan, alongside DHGV, whilst maintaining a sense of visual separation between both developments. To this end, a joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Study was commissioned by both Councils, which I have enclosed as evidence against this representation, to consider how both Council's Green Belt and land management policies, either side of the boundary, could be coordinated in this location going forward. This was to also help determine whether it was possible for DHGV to co-exist with development in West Basildon without causing harm to heritage and environmental assets within Basildon Borough.
The Council has noted that the Plan does now includes specific references that the joint borough boundary needs a degree of landscape and Green Belt treatment to maintain a visual separation with the edge of Basildon Borough, but it does not elaborate as to how this will be achieved. The Council therefore finds its disappointing that this joint study does not form part of the referenced and published evidence base for the Plan, nor do the outcomes from this work appear to have informed Policy R01(II) as sought through the earlier Duty to Cooperate engagement. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II) and Paragraph 9.36.
Modification: The measures set out in the Joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options 2017 should be acknowledged in Paragraph 9.36 and incorporated into Policy 9.36 to make it more justified and effective at mitigating the impact the development would otherwise have on the Basildon Borough. This would lead to an effective policy outcome identified as being necessary during Duty to Cooperate engagement to manage this cross-boundary issue. It is considered that as a matter of principle, this would help address the Council's previous Regulation 18 objections as to how the boundary would be treated and how the new community could exist side by side the existing smaller settlement of Dunton Wayletts in the Basildon Borough.
Consultation Point: SP04 and R01(I)
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is noted that the Plan assumes that all commuters will use West Horndon railway station and other areas in Brentwood Borough to access a means of travelling to other places. It fails however to investigate the possible impacts on Basildon Borough's road and rail infrastructure, as a
neighbouring authority, arising from commuters or other road users choosing to access facilities within the Basildon Borough instead.
The Transport Assessment (PBA, 2018) discusses measures to ensure more effective bus access to and from West Horndon Station - serving an area including the new DHGV, as well as other employment sites within South Brentwood Growth Corridor. It is noted however that the need for new connections into Basildon Borough in terms of walking, cycling, public transport or road do not appear to be mentioned as being necessary to make it sustainable.
The Brentwood Borough IDP states that a new multi-modal interchange will be created at West Horndon Station. This will serve the DHGV, Childerditch, West Horndon and Enterprise Development sites. It also mentions the possibility that this could serve any future northern Thurrock developments. The Plan states that, the proposed DHGV settlement's transport mitigation measures will include potential dedicated bus route(s) connecting the development with West Horndon station and improvements at West Horndon station for vehicular, segregated cycle and public transport access from surrounding developments, as well as cycle storage and a bus interchange facility. The Council is therefore confused that in seeking to mitigate DHGV's impacts on the surrounding areas there is no mention of any impact being evaluated as spilling over into Basildon Borough and needing its own mitigation.
Laindon railway station, with three platforms and starter trains has greater commutable capacity than West Horndon and could become an alternative choice for residents within DHGV, despite a lack of new connections hampering their ability to make that choice easily without driving, via the A127. Whilst the Plan seeks to make provision for a new interchange at West Horndon to capture these movements more locally, should commuters still seek to use alternative stations including those outside of the Brentwood Borough such as Laindon, this will lead to increase demands on those stations' facilities, particularly parking, as well as the routes to get to them. Policy SP04 does set out the approach required by Paragraph 34 of the NPPF, but it does not explicitly mention that it has accounted for the spatial context of DHGV and the existing spatial form of the Brentwood Borough, where its higher-order settlements are further to the north. It does not state that it will support the possibility of developer contributions being used to mitigate this impact outside the Brentwood Borough in higher-order settlements which are closer that Brentwood Borough's own settlements, but outside the Brentwood Borough. This is considered to disregard how new residents living in the DHGV could behave in the future in seeking to access services and how this impact will therefore be adequately mitigated.
It seems that it an effort for the new DHGV to be self-sustaining, as set out in Paragraph 9.14, it has meant the Plan remains unclear, as to how it will relate to its neighbouring areas, particularly in terms of access and connectivity. This is considered a core sustainability principle for new developments and whether in exercising that choice, its residents will use what is to be provided within Brentwood Borough remains to be seen. They could use alternative routes (namely the A127 and West Mayne into Laindon) to access different facilities already available in closer higher order settlements outside Brentwood Borough. Considering that there are existing services that are already shared between the Borough's residents, e.g. schools, it is considered essential for a more practical and pragmatic approach to be adopted should the DHGV be permitted, including the policy reality that until such a time as the critical mass for new homes is established on-site, it is more likely that Basildon Borough's facilities in Laindon will be picking up the demands of new users arising from the neighbouring Brentwood Borough in the short-medium term.
There is no evidence presented by Brentwood Borough Council which indicates that DHGV's growth demands have been evaluated, in combination, with the projected demands arising from the Basildon Borough Local Plan. The Plan should not assume that such growth can just be absorbed by the nearby infrastructure and services in Basildon Borough and investment through developer contributions will be necessary. The infrastructure in the Basildon Borough has been evaluated for its capacity, its ability to grow and the scale of investment necessary to accommodate the growth in the Basildon Borough Local Plan to enable the Basildon growth to occur and there has not been enough information published during Regulation 18 (as set out in previous
representations) to be able to incorporate any testing of Brentwood's growth in as well. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP04 and R01(II).
Modification: The Plan should be modified to recognise that some impacts are likely to be cross-boundary and additional provisions should be incorporated into SP04 and RO1(I) that will support using S106/CIL arising from development in Brentwood Borough to be used for investment outside the Brentwood Borough, where it can be proven that there is reasonable likelihood of a direct or residual impacts otherwise being caused that need to be mitigated. This will make the Plan more effective, justified and in accordance with national policy.
Consultation Point: R01(I) and Appendix 1
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes the housing trajectory included within the Plan at Appendix 1. With regards to DHGV it is assumed that delivery will commence in 2022/23 (within the next five years) at a rate of 100 homes per annum, climbing to 300 homes per annum by 2026/27. As set out in earlier representations in respects of housing supply, this seems overly optimistic given that the allocation is currently within the extent of the Green Belt, requires masterplanning and will need to go through a planning application and elements of the condition discharge process before development on site can even commence. Development commencement on-site meanwhile, will be reliant on essential utility and infrastructure provision. No evidence is provided alongside the Plan, or within the associated Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), as to how the housing trajectory in general has been developed. Furthermore, there is no specific evidence published setting out the evidence base, or any form of a development framework/ masterplan for the DHGV that explains how the proposed accelerated rate of delivery will be possible to achieve.
The Council considers that the speed and level of growth in this boundary location may have implications for Basildon Borough's own housing market and risks the ability for it to be able to deliver housing at the rates necessary for its own housing trajectory. Early residents of the DHGV will rely on some services and facilities outside the village to meet their initial needs, unless these facilities were all to be front-loaded and wait for the population to gradually build up to make full use of them. As an example, the DHGV will require new primary and secondary school provision. However, whilst the Brentwood IDP shows the primary provision in particular being delivered early, it is understood to not be economically viable to operate a school with low pupil numbers, and it may be the case that the village grows for a number of years with these pupils travelling to other schools in the locality (principally within the Basildon Borough), whilst operational primary and then secondary education provision is secured and the village becomes more self-sufficient. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(I) and Appendix 1.
Modification: The Council therefore seeks for evidence to be provided demonstrating the realistic delivery trajectory for DHGV so that the potential short-medium term pressures on services and facilities in nearby settlements can be assessed, understood and planned for by service providers and neighbouring authorities. This will help ensure adequate mitigation provisions can be put in place to reduce any potential negative impacts on Basildon Borough residents living nearby. This will make the Plan justified and effective.
Consultation Point: R01(II)
Soundness - Effectiveness
Notwithstanding that the Council objects to many of the fundamental soundness principles of the DHGV, the Council would like to seek assurances written into Policy R01(II) that it will be invited by Brentwood Borough Council to become more involved in the detailed design and delivery of the new village. This will ensure that the strategic and cross-boundary impacts covered by the Duty to Cooperate and raised during the Council's response to the Plan at Regulation 18 and 19 stages are managed effectively during the development's implementation stages (assuming it is
considered sound), alongside the Basildon Borough Local Plan's own implementation. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II).
Modification: The Council would like a criterion added into Policy R01(II) under a new heading "Collaborative Approach" that will make it a requirement for neighbouring authorities to be engaged during the detailed design stages of DHGV to ensure strategic and cross boundary impacts are managed effectively during implementation.
This concludes the Council's representation.

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 within 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 'Great Eastern Mainline (London - Ipswich - Norwich) and A12' and 'Essex Thameside, A217 and A13 corridor' (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 Transport 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 Jorn Peters if you would like to arrange a meeting.

Brentwood Local Plan
Pre-Submission Document

CONTENTS
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Context 2
2 National Planning Policy 3
2.1 National Planning Policy Framework 3
2.2 Planning Practice Guidance 4
3 Legal Requirements 7
3.1 Duty to Cooperate 7
3.2 Sustainability Appraisal 8
4 Spatial Strategy 9
4.1 Vision and Strategic Objectives 9
5 Managing Growth 10
5.1 Policy SP02: Managing Growth 10
5.2 Policy SP04: Developer Contributions 11
6 Resilient Built Environment 12
6.1 Policy BE02: Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency 12
7 Housing Provision 13
7.1 Policy HP01: Housing Mix 13
7.2 Policy HP06: Standards for New Housing 13
8 Conclusion 15
8.1 Overall Conclusion 15

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 These representations are submitted by Gladman in response to the current consultation on the Brentwood Local Plan Pre-Submission Document. Gladman specialise in the promotion of strategic land for residential development with associated community infrastructure.
1.1.2 Gladman has considerable experience in the development industry across a number of sectors, including residential and employment development. From that experience, we understand the need for the planning system to provide local communities with the homes and jobs that are needed to ensure that residents have access to a decent home and employment opportunities.
1.1.3 Gladman also has a wealth of experience in contributing to the Development Plan preparation process, having made representations on numerous local planning documents throughout the UK and having participated in many Local Plan public examinations. It is on the basis of that experience that the comments are made in this representation.
1.1.4 Through this submission, Gladman have sought to highlight a number of issues with the Brentwood Local Plan. Gladman submit that the Council will need to carefully consider some of its policy choices and ensure that its evidence base is up-to-date and robust in light of changing circumstances and the changes brought about by the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019).
1.2 Context
1.2.1 The Revised Framework (2019) sets out four tests that must be met for Local Plans to be considered sound. In this regard, we submit that in order for it to be sound it is fundamental that the Thurrock Local Plan is:
* Positively prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
* Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
* Effective - deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
* Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

2 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
2.1 National Planning Policy Framework
2.1.1 On 24th July 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published the Revised National Planning Policy Framework which was subsequently updated in February 2019. These publications form the first revisions of the Framework since 2012 and implement changes that have been informed through the Housing White Paper, The Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places consultation and the draft Revised Framework consultation.
2.1.2 The Revised Framework (2019) introduces a number of major changes to national policy and provides further clarification to national planning policy as well as new measures on a range of matters. Crucially, the changes to national policy reaffirms the Government's commitment to ensuring up-to-date plans are in place which provide a positive vision for the areas which they are responsible for to address the housing, economic, social and environmental priorities to help shape future local communities for future generations. In particular, paragraph 16 of the Revised Framework (2019) states that Plans should:
a) Be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development;
b) Be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable;
c) Be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees;
d) Contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;
e) Be accessible through the use of digital tools to assist public involvement and policy presentation; and
f) Serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant).
2.1.3 To support the Government's continued objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that the Local Plan provides a sufficient amount and variety of land that can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay .
2.1.4 In determining the minimum number of homes needed, strategic plans should be based upon a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method as set out in the PPG unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach. It is imperative that the emerging Local Plan is formulated on the basis of meeting this requirement as a minimum.
2.1.5 Once the minimum number of homes that is required is identified, the planning authority should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. In this regard, paragraph 67 sets out specific guidance that local planning authorities should take into account when identifying and meeting their housing need. It states:
"Strategic policy-making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their areas through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. Strategic plans should identify a supply of:
a) specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan , and
b) specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the plan.
2.1.6 Once a local planning authority has identified its housing needs, these needs should be met in full, unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so . Local planning authorities should seek to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, resulting in net gains across all three. Adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided, where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered.
2.1.7 To be considered sound at Examination the emerging Local Plan will need to meet all four of the soundness tests set out in paragraph 35 of the Revised Framework (2019).
2.2 Planning Practice Guidance
2.2.1 The Government published updates to its Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on 13th September 2018. The updated PPG provides further clarity on how specific elements of the Revised Framework should be interpreted when preparing Local Plans. In particular, the updated Housing Needs Assessment chapter of the PPG confirms that the Revised Framework expects local planning authorities to follow the standard method for assessing local housing needs, and that the standard method identifies the minimum housing need figure and not a final housing requirement .
2.2.2 The calculation of objectively assessed needs (OAN) for housing has been a subject of much debate as part of Local Plan Examinations and s.78 appeals since its initial introduction through the Framework in 2012 with interested parties grappling with the issue of OAN with varying outcomes depending on local circumstances. To simplify the assessment the Government, through the Revised Framework has introduced the standardised method which should be undertaken through the 3-stage process outlined at paragraph 005 of the PPG .
2.2.3 Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that whilst the standard methodology to assessing housing needs has been introduced, it is likely that this will be subject to further change. In this regard, it is currently anticipated that the standard method will be adjusted to ensure that the starting point in the plan-making process is consistent with the Government's proposals in Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places consultation, to ensure that 300,000 homes are built per annum by the mid-2020s. This follows the release of the 2016 based household projections in September 2018, which forecast a lower level of household growth than previously envisaged.
2.2.4 It is therefore important that future iterations of the Local Plan take account of any changes to the standard method for calculating housing needs during the course of their preparation.
2.2.5 Whilst the PPG advises that the standard method is not mandatory, there is a possibility that other methods can be used in exceptional circumstances based on robust evidence in order to deviate from the standard method. Indeed, the PPG is clear that the standard method only identifies the minimum number of homes required to meet population needs and does not take into account the variety of factors which may influence the housing required in local areas such as changing economic circumstances or other factors which may change demographic behaviour. Where additional growth above historic trends are likely to occur, then local planning authorities should include an appropriate uplift to the housing numbers to meet the need in full. It is important that this uplift is undertaken prior to and separate from the consideration of the demographic baseline assessment of need and how much of this need can be accommodated in a housing requirement figure. Circumstances where the need to apply an uplift may be appropriate include, but are not limited to:
- Where growth strategies are in place, particularly where those growth strategies identify that additional housing above historic trends is needed to support growth or funding is in place to promote and facilitate growth (e.g. housing deals);
- Where strategic infrastructure improvements are planned that would support new homes;
- Where an authority has agreed to take on unmet need, calculated using the standard method from neighbouring authorities, as set out in a statement of common ground;
- Historic delivery levels where previous delivery has exceeded the minimum need identified it should be considered whether the level of delivery is indicative of greater housing need; and
- Where recent assessments such as Strategic Housing Market Assessments suggest higher levels of need than those proposed by a strategic policy making authority, an assessment of lower need should be justified.
2.2.6 In addition, it is important for local planning authorities to consider the implications of the standard method on delivering affordable housing need in full. The PPG is clear that the total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, taking into account the probable percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by open market housing development. If it becomes clear that affordable housing need will not be delivered in full, then an increase to the total housing figures included in the plan should be considered where it could help to deliver the required number of the affordable homes.
2.2.7 In the event that an alternative approach is used it should only be considered sound if it exceeds the minimum starting point. The PPG is clear that any alternative approach with results in lower housing need figure than the standard method should be considered unsound as it does not meet the minimum housing need required.  
3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Duty to Cooperate
3.1.1 The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) is a legal requirement established through section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. The DtC requires local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues through the process of ongoing engagement and collaboration.
3.1.2 The Revised Framework (2019) has introduced a number of significant changes for how local planning authorities are expected to cooperate including the preparation of Statement(s) of Common Ground (SOCG) which are required to demonstrate that a plan is based on effective cooperation and has been based on agreements made by neighbouring authorities where cross boundary strategic issues are likely to exist. The Revised Framework (2019) sets out that local planning authorities should produce, maintain, and update one or more Statement(s) of Common Ground (SOCG), throughout the plan making process . The SOCG(s) should provide a written record of the progress made by the strategic planning authorities during the process of planning for strategic cross-boundary matters and will need to demonstrate the measures local authorities have taken to ensure cross boundary matters have been considered and what actions are required to ensure issues are proactively dealt with e.g. unmet housing needs.
3.1.3 As demonstrated through the outcome of the Coventry, Mid Sussex, Castle Point and St Albans examinations, if a Council fails to satisfactorily discharge its DtC a Planning Inspector must recommend non-adoption of the Plan. This cannot be rectified through modifications.
3.1.4 Gladman welcome the South Essex Authorities' commitment to the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) covering Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. All of these authorities have significant strategic issues to contend with not least, the delivery of substantial housing and economic growth and the need to review Green Belt boundaries at a strategic scale.
3.1.5 It is however disappointing, that the JSP will not allocate specific sites which will be left for the individual Local Plans to take forward. The level of housing need in South Essex is significant and delivery has fallen substantially behind need for a long period of time. There is therefore an immediate need to address this situation; and for Local Plans to have to await the adoption of the JSP before sites are taken through the Local Plan process and finally released from the Green Belt, is simply going to result in inevitable further delay.
3.1.6 The JSP could release the strategic sites for development in partnership with the constituent authorities leaving a certain proportion of housing need to be addressed by the Local Plans on non-strategic sites. This would allow the release of Green Belt for development as early in the process as possible, thus meeting urgent need in an expedient manner.
3.1.7 The JSP also needs to follow a statutory plan preparation process with requisite consultation and examination to ensure that it has full weight in the planning process and to guide the preparation of the Local Plans on a formal basis. If the JSP is simply a non-statutory document, then there is the potential for changes over time in the other authorities to cause significant issues.
3.1.8 Beyond this commitment, there is very little evidence available setting out how Brentwood has discharged its Duty to Cooperate and what outcomes have been achieved through this process. This is especially pertinent because of the need to address unmet housing needs across the HMA.
3.2 Sustainability Appraisal
3.2.1 In accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), and also incorporate the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA regulations).
3.2.2 The SA/SEA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plan's preparation, assessing the effects of the emerging Local Plan Review proposals on sustainable development when judged against all reasonable alternatives. The Council should ensure that the future results of the SA clearly justify its policy choices. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be clear from the results of this assessment why some policy options have progressed, and others have been rejected. This must be undertaken through a comparative and equal assessment of each reasonable alternative, in the same level of detail for both chosen and rejected alternatives. The Council's decision-making and scoring should be robust, justified and transparent.
 
4 SPATIAL STRATEGY
4.1 Vision and Strategic Objectives
4.1.1 Gladman has concerns with certain elements of the Spatial Strategy that is being pursued through the Brentwood Local Plan (BLP).
4.1.2 The Plan sets out that one of the overarching driving factors behind the BLP is meeting the housing needs of the borough. However, the Council are using the 2016 Household Projections to calculate the housing needs of the borough which the Government have now confirmed is the incorrect data set to rely upon. Use of the 2014 Household Projections is likely to yield a higher housing requirement and therefore, the Council will need to address this issue before the Plan gets to Examination.
4.1.3 They also set out within the Settlement Hierarchy in Table 2.3 that the development of brownfield land will be prioritised. This requirement has no support in National Policy as Para 117 of the Revised Framework (2019) simply states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land. This requirement should therefore be changed to reflect Government guidance.
4.1.4 The prioritisation of brownfield land is also repeated in the Spatial Development Principles section under Paragraph 3.23 which similarly needs amending.
4.1.5 It is also disappointing that in the Vision and the Strategic Objectives, no mention is made of providing housing to meet the needs of the local population or of addressing one of the key challenges facing Brentwood, that of tackling housing affordability. It is therefore suggested that given the emphasis being placed by the Government on fixing the broken housing market, a further Strategic Objective is added to the Plan that specifically relates to the delivery of housing.
 
5 MANAGING GROWTH
5.1 Policy SP02: Managing Growth
5.1.1 The Council sets out in the pre-amble to Policy SP02 that they consider the housing need figure using the Standard Methodology is 350 dwellings per annum using the 2016 Household Projections published by ONS.
5.1.2 However, since the Local Plan was published, the Government has clearly set out that the 2016 Household Projections should not be used for the purposes of establishing the housing need figure under the standard methodology and that the 2014 Household Projections should be used instead.
5.1.3 The Council therefore needs to recalculate the housing need figure using the correct set of data so that it accords with the Framework and is not immediately found unsound on this basis.
5.1.4 It must also be recognised that the standard method only identifies the minimum number of homes required to meet population needs and does not take into account the variety of factors which may influence the housing required in a local area such as changing economic circumstances or other factors which may change demographic behaviour. Where additional growth above historic trends is likely to occur, then local planning authorities should include an appropriate uplift to the housing numbers to meet the need in full. It is important that this uplift is undertaken prior to and separate from, the consideration of how much of this need can be accommodated in the housing requirement.
5.1.5 The Council are seeking to provide an uplift to the base level of housing needs established through the Standard Method but this is intended to provide a buffer in the housing supply to ensure that the housing requirement is met or surpassed. It is not an uplift to take account of the circumstances listed in the PPG (see paragraph 3.1.5 above).
5.1.6 Gladman support the Council's inclusion of a 20% buffer in order to provide flexibility in supply as this will allow the Local Plan to adapt to changes in circumstances such as stalled sites, delay in delivery and sites which do not come forward as envisaged. This is especially important where Local Plans are predicated on the delivery of a small number of large-scale strategic sites.
5.1.7 However, we also consider that the housing requirement included within the Local Plan is not representative of the full housing needs of the area and that factors such as the high housing affordability ratio (11.23 in 2017), continuing economic growth and proximity to London should lead the Council to uplift the housing requirement figure above the minimum identified through the Standard Method. The Council would then still need to include a 20% buffer above this figure, in order to provide the flexibility needed to ensure the housing requirement is met or surpassed.
5.1.8 Gladman also has concerns regarding the Sequential Land Use approach which is set out in Paragraph 4.22 of the Local Plan. This is intended to be used as a Development Management tool to appraise proposals against a sequential land use hierarchy. However, we consider that this goes beyond the guidance set out in National Policy which seeks to maximise the use of brownfield land where possible and where it does not conflict with other policies in the Framework. It is also difficult to see how this approach would work in a Development Management context as applicants would have to demonstrate that there are no other suitable alternative sites which could accommodate the proposed development.
5.1.9 Policy SP02 also sets out a stepped approach to housing delivery within Brentwood which would equate to 310 dwellings per annum 2016-2023 and 584 dwellings per annum from 2023 onwards. Given that Brentwood has struggled to deliver homes over recent years and has in fact, failed to meet the requirements of the recently published Housing Delivery Test, resulting in the need for a 20% buffer to be applied, coupled with the fact that housing affordability in the borough is severe, must lead the Council to the conclusion that it has to address the backlog of housing needs as quickly as possible.
5.1.10 Implementing a stepped approach to the housing requirement will only lead to people having to wait longer for their housing needs to be met which, in the face of the Government's push to address the housing crisis, must be unacceptable.
5.1.11 The Council point to the fact that given the level of Green Belt constraint facing the borough, it is extremely difficult to achieve a five-year housing land supply. However, if the Council allocate a sufficient range and type of site in various locations across the borough, including small scale Green Belt releases, then there is no reason why housing needs cannot be met quicker thus maintaining a 5-year housing land supply.
5.1.12 Gladman do not consider that the Council has sufficient evidence to justify the implementation of a stepped approach to housing delivery and therefore consider the Local Plan to be unsound in this respect.
5.2 Policy SP04: Developer Contributions
5.2.1 Whilst Gladman has no specific comments on the content of Policy SP04, we would wish to voice concern over the myriad of policies contained in the Local Plan which may have implications for development viability. Many of the policies such as Policy SP05, BE01, BE02, BE03, BE09, BE10 etc have requirements within them that will impact on the viability of development schemes. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the cumulative impact of all of these requirements has been considered through the Viability Study, which is a requirement set out at Paragraph 34 of the Framework to ensure that such policies do not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. This gap in evidence needs to be addressed by the Council to ensure that these policies are justified.
 
6 RESILIENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT
6.1 Policy BE02: Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency
6.1.1 Gladman are concerned with part (f) of Policy BE02 as it is too onerous and goes beyond National Policy. Part (f) requires all proposals to include commercial and domestic scale renewable energy and decentralised energy as part of new development. This is an extremely onerous requirement, particularly for small schemes where it may not be technically feasible. It could also have a huge impact on development viability.
6.1.2 Paragraph 153 of the Framework allows for planning policies to require development to include decentralised energy supply. However, it also provides a caveat that this is only where it is viable and feasible. Part (f) of Policy BE02 should therefore be amended to reflect this guidance.
 
7 HOUSING PROVISION
7.1 Policy HP01: Housing Mix
7.1.1 Policy HP01 contains a number of development requirements which would be applied to all new development including housing mix, accessible and adaptable dwellings and self and custom build homes.
7.1.2 If the Council wishes to adopt the discretionary accessible and adaptable homes standards as a policy requirement, then this should only be done in accordance with the Revised Framework footnote 46 i.e. where this would address an identified need for such properties and where the standards can be justified. The Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) dated 25th March 2015 stated that "the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPG".
7.1.3 All new homes are built to Building Regulations Part M Category 1 Standards which include such adaptions as level approach routes, accessible front doors and wider internal doors and corridors. If the Government had intended that evidence of an aging population alone justified the adoption of the higher Part M Category 2 or 3 optional standard, then these would have been incorporated as mandatory into the Building Regulations.
7.1.4 We have been unable to locate where the evidence of a need for these standards is contained within the evidence base. Without this evidence, these requirements should be removed from the Local Plan.
7.1.5 Whilst the concept of Self Build and Custom Build Housing is supported, the inclusion of plots on large scale sites does not add to the supply of houses overall (it merely changes the housing mix from one product to another). It is also difficult to assess how it will be implemented given issues around working hours, site access, health and safety etc. that are associated with large scale development sites. The percentage of provision on sites should also be determined on detailed evidence of need and the provision of these plots should also be subject to viability testing.
7.2 Policy HP06: Standards for New Housing
7.2.1 Policy HP06 requires all residential development to have to comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDDS).
7.2.2 If the Council wishes to adopt the NDSS as a policy requirement, then this should only be done in accordance with the Revised Framework footnote 46 i.e. where this would address an identified need for such properties and where the standards can be justified. The WMS dated 25th March 2015 stated that "the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPG".
7.2.3 We have been unable to locate where the evidence of a need for these standards is contained within the evidence base. Without this evidence, these requirements should be removed from the Local Plan.

 
8 CONCLUSION
8.1 Overall Conclusion
8.1.1 Critical to the success of the South Essex area will be the timely production of the JSP which will define the major growth areas to meet the housing and employment needs across the area and will inform the preparation of the individual Local Plans.
8.1.2 It is essential that through this process, the full needs for housing and employment are met in the areas that people want to live. It is also imperative that the major policy constraint of Green Belt is reviewed in a strategic manner which allows full need to be met and ensures that the new boundaries endure beyond the JSP plan period.
8.1.3 The impact of London will have a heavy influence on the future developments needs of the area and this must also be taken fully into account through the preparation of the JSP.
8.1.4 It is also considered that in order to give the JSP the weight it needs to ensure that the constituent Local Plans deliver its outcomes, the JSP should be a statutory plan which follows the requisite plan preparation process of consultation and subsequent examination.
8.1.5 Gladman have some fundamental concerns with the BLP, particularly with the identification of the level of housing need in the Plan and the implementation of a stepped approach to housing delivery, which would render the BLP unsound if they are not addressed.
8.1.6 Gladman therefore request the right to participate in any forthcoming Local Plan Examination to discuss these concerns orally.

Should any part of the Brentwood Community Hospital site be declared as surplus to the operational healthcare requirement of the NHS in the future, then the site should be considered suitable and available for alternative use, and considered deliverable within the period 5-10 years. These representations identify the sites potential for future development, in accordance with the realignment of the Green Belt so that this significant area of development land is no longer included. It is evident, that the site does not make a positive contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt set out in the NPPF. Accordingly, redevelopment of the site could provide a key contribution to Brentwood's housing need, which the Council have failed to justify, given the reliance on key strategic sites, and the lack of acknowledgement for unmet need arising from neighbouring authorities (Basildon and Havering). These representations therefore promote and identify parts of the Brentwood Community Hospital site as a suitable site to contribute towards these requirements. This site presents an excellent opportunity for a high quality residential redevelopment on previously developed Green Belt land. This could be achieved without compromising the character of the area as the development can act as an infill site to the existing residential development surrounding it, and without the need for significant infrastructure. Furthermore, the site is also available to accommodate further health related development should the CCG seek to expand their services in this location, including the possible expansion of the hospital to provide more comprehensive services for the community. However, the site's Green Belt designation would make it difficult for any planning application proposing additional built form to provide further healthcare services to be considered acceptable. The subject site is considered available, suitable and deliverable within the 5-10 year period of the plan.

These representations seek to comment specifically on Housing Requirements, Housing Allocations, and relevant evidence base documents identified and referred to in the draft Local Plan. In addition to this, these representations will also comment on specific parts of the Spatial Strategy and Strategic Objectives provided in the emerging plan. Housing Requirements This Consultation document outlines that the Council commit to delivering 7,752 new net additional dwellings over the Plan period 2016-2033 using a stepped trajectory that would see 310 dwellings per annum until 2022/2023, following by 584 dwellings per annum from 2023/24-2033. Overall, this represents an average of 456 dwellings per annum over the Plan period. The minimum housing need for Brentwood based on the standardised methodology is 452 dwellings per annum. In addition to the Council's minimum requirement, there are 3,508 dwellings that are unmet in Basildon and 5,650 dwellings that are unmet in Havering. Basildon and Havering both adjoin Brentwood, therefore the Council should consider contributing to their housing needs through outlining and planning for a higher housing target. The Council should also consider the arrival of Crossrail, which is set to unlock further demand for housing in the area. The Council's approach to a stepped trajectory is also not justified, and should look to deliver housing in the short term. Housing Allocations
The Council's Local Plan Consultation document identifies a number of residential allocations on Green Belt land located at the edge of the Brentwood Urban Area. Policy NE13 (Site Allocations in the Green Belt) states that sites allocated within the Green Belt will be expected to provide "significant community benefits", and will be de-allocated from the Green Belt to allow development to take place. This identifies that the release of Green Belt land in these areas is being pursued as part of their Spatial Strategy. Green Belt land is also proposed for release in a number of other settlements in the Borough. Of the Council's allocations, there are four Strategic Housing Allocations. The largest allocation is Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation (Policy R01), which is allocated for a residential-led development to deliver around 2,700 homes, with a potential overall capacity of 4,000 beyond 2033. This allocation was also located within the Green Belt. The variable housing target outlined by the Council is substantially reliant on this Garden Village commencing delivery in 2023/24 (within the first five years of the Plan), and delivering at a rate of 100 homes per annum from thereon, reaching 300 homes per annum from 2026. Housing Allocation- Land off Crescent Drive: The land adjoining Brentwood Community Hospital to the east benefits from a draft allocation in the Local Plan consultation document. Although this site has similar characteristics to the Brentwood Community Hospital site, including being a previous NHS site, it is not designated as Green Belt. The allocation on site 186, Land at Crescent Drive, Shenfield, identifies that the 1.54ha site can provide for around 55 dwellings, anticipated to be delivered between 2021/2022 and 2023/2024. It will provide a mix of size and type of homes including affordable in accordance with the Council's policy requirements. This outlines the development potential of the area. Loss of Community Use Policy PC14 (Protecting and Enhancing Community Assets) states that existing community assets will be protected from inappropriate changes of use or redevelopment. Policy PC14 (e), states that development proposals that would result in a loss of community assets will be discouraged unless it can be demonstrated the following; i. There are realistic proposals for re-provision that continue to serve the needs of the neighbourhood and wider community; or ii. the loss is part of a wider public service transformation plan which requires investment in modern, fit for purpose infrastructure and facilities to meet future population needs or to sustain and improve services. To confirm, a property can only be released for disposal or alternative use by NHSPS once Commissioners have confirmed that it is no longer required for the delivery of NHS services. Furthermore, NHSPS estate code requires that any property to be disposed of is first listed on "e-PIMS", the central database of Government Central Civil Estate properties and land, which allows other public sector bodies to consider their use for it. The ability of the NHS to continually review the healthcare estate, optimise the use of land, and deliver health services from modern and fit for purpose facilities is crucial. Given that there is very careful oversight from NHS England and CCGs to ensure sufficient services are re-provided, and that the estate is fit-for-purpose, additional protection through planning policy should be unnecessary in relation to public healthcare facilities. Therefore, if all or part of the site is declared as surplus to the operational healthcare requirements of the NHS by health commissioners, this should be considered sufficient to satisfy Policy PC14 and any subsequent replacement policy. Furthermore, any marketing period (in addition to service re-provision) should not be required. Evidence Base Documents - Since the last consultation on the Brentwood Local Plan, the Council have published a suite of evidence base documents to inform the Regulation 19 Local Plan and to address the Council's main concerns. Evidence base documents of relevance consist of the following; * Green Belt Study (November 2018); and * Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Green Belt Study (2018) - The Council's Green Belt study (February 2018), identifies that around 89% of the Borough is designated as Green Belt; it then splits all the Green Belt in the district into various parcels which are assessed against a number of criteria including the NPPF's five Green Belt purposes. The land at Brentwood Community Hospital is entirely located within Parcel 55: East of Middleton Hall Lane. This Parcel spans over 26.1ha of land which is identified as being wholly / largely contained by large built up areas. In summary, the entire parcel is considered to be well-contained, but is located within a Critical
Countryside Gap (CCG), operates as Functional Countryside (FC), and has a moderate relationship with a Historic Town. The Parcel is therefore identified as performing a moderate - high contribution towards the Green Belt's purposes. The Green Belt Stage 2 Review (February 2018) sub-divided a number of sites assessed in Part 1 for further detailed assessment. Parcel 55 had not been sub-divided in Part 2 for further assessment and thus there was no further assessment of the site against the Green Belt's purposes in this round of assessment. The Council's most recent Green Belt Study (November 2018), assesses the site under Site Assessment 186. To note, only the car parks to the western extent of the site fall within the Green Belt, therefore as such, the assessment only related to 25% of the site. The site was assessed as follows; * The car parks are strongly associated with surrounding buildings, albeit protruding in to the Green Belt. The site is assessed as Partly Contained (PC); * The site is small scale and contained within the town (e.g. infilling). The site is bounded by mature dense woodland to the west. Whilst development would mass housing on the site, there would be no appreciable reduction in the gap. The site is assessed as Separation Retained (SR); * The area of the site located within the Green Belt is car parks and woodland areas so therefore is assessed as being Mixed Functions within Countryside (MFC); * The site is assessed as having a limited relationship with the historic town (LRHT). Overall, the site was assessed as having low-moderate contribution to the Green Belt. The site was considered as a "partly developed site" due to the hardstanding car parks and was associated with the settlement boundary to the east. Infrastructure Delivery Plan - The Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) provides a schedule of infrastructure requirements to help support new development growth planned within the Brentwood Local Plan. Paragraph 10.6 outlines that Brentwood has a slightly higher proportion of over 65s compared to Essex county as a whole, although a 17% increase is expected between 2015 and 2025 equating to 2,600 more people. Given the foregoing, there is a clear need for a higher proportion of homes which are capable of accommodating people's changing needs. Paragraph 10.19 of the IDP also states that hospitals will need to be redesigned to treat the patients of the future. The site could be suitable for housing for older people as it is located in a sustainable location close to services, facilities and to transport links. The IDP also highlights that there is an ongoing programme to improve the utilisation of Brentwood Community Hospital, to reduce the void costs associated with the building and to make better use of the opportunity for providing a range of health and care services. Strategic Objectives - This sub-section provides a review of the Spatial Strategy, and the Strategic Objectives and how they are of relevance to the subject site. Chapter 2 (Borough of Villages), Figure 2.3 sets out the borough's settlement hierarchy categories, to identify their role for delivering sustainable growth. Figure 2.3 outlines Brentwood as a "large town", alongside Shenfield with 4 urban neighbourhoods, 2 large villages, 1 garden village, 6 rural villages, and 7 rural villages in sparse settings. Paragraph 2.11 of the Consultation document outlines that Brentwood is the borough's largest settlement and offers the most scope to develop in, in accordance with sustainable development objectives as set out in the NPPF. Chapter 3 of the consultation document outlines the Borough's Spatial Strategy and Strategic Objectives. The Council have highlighted four strategic objectives and how the policies align to help deliver these policies. These are the following; * SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably; * SO2: Deliver a Healthy and Resilient Built Environment; * SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All; and * SO4: Deliver Beautiful, Biodiverse, Clean and a Functional Natural Environment. The subsequent chapters outline the policies that sit within each strategic objective. These representations specifically comment on both: Managing Sustainable Growth (SO1) and Sustainable Communities (SO3). SO1: Managing Sustainable Growth - The Council aim to direct development to the most sustainable locations, ensuring that the characteristics and patterns of the settlements are protected and enhanced. The redevelopment of the site would aid the Council in delivering most of these objectives and policies. Although currently designated as Green Belt, the brownfield nature of the site and its location within the existing built up area of Brentwood means it can significantly aid in intensification. The site is also easily accessible by existing public transport modes as outlined in the 'site context' section of these representations. The site is highly sustainable and helps contribute towards delivering the Strategic Objectives including having no unacceptable effect on visual amenity; having no unacceptable impact on health; and causes no unacceptable effects on adjoining sites. The intensification of this site would also increase the critical mass of customers/users of existing services and facilities. This can help to ensure the viability of existing services and amenities in the local area. The site could also be optimised for retention in its current use with the provision of additional built form to provide additional health services or an extension to the current facilities. SO3: Sustainable Communities - The Council aim to highlight opportunities which flexibly respond to the changing economic climate and employment sector trends making citizens feel economically empowered to enjoy and benefit from the necessary community/social infrastructure that sustains inclusive, informed, vibrant, active and cohesive communities. The potential for the provision of residential development at the site would help the Council to meet their identified and growing need for housing over the plan period. The sustainable location of the site in relation to the existing built form and settlement of Brentwood means that should the site ever become surplus to the requirements of the NHS, it would be a great location for residential development. The site is adjoined to the settlement, so therefore can help contribute towards creating a cohesive community. Furthermore, as outlined above, the site is also capable of accommodating further healthcare-related development, including the possible expansion of the hospital to provide better and more comprehensive services for the local community. The site is located in a sustainable location and is easily accessible by public transport, cycling and walking and could therefore make a good location for the expansion of the existing healthcare facilities should this be required by the CCG in the near future. Chapter 3 also outlines the Council's spatial development principles, stating that development proposals in the borough will follow the following principles; 1. Urban Areas- Prioritise brownfield sites, making efficient use of land; 2. Brownfield Green Belt Land- Use of previously developed land in the Green Belt; 3. Strategic Sites- Use opportunities created by larger housing development; 4. Urban Extensions- deliver new homes in areas close to existing transport and local facilities; and 5. Windfall- an allowance for small scale development that will come forward in the future. The site is Brownfield Green Belt land (Tier 2) so therefore should be favoured for development over strategic sites and urban extensions. The Role and Extent of the Green Belt Policy NE9: Green Belt sets out that the Green Belt will continue to be preserved from inappropriate development so that "it continues to maintain its openness and serve its key functions". The redevelopment of this site would only seek for the removal of a small element of existing Green Belt land which is currently a mix of hardstanding car parking and woodland. This removal would enable efficient and maximum redevelopment of a brownfield site, without contradicting the purposes of the Green Belt. The NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be amended in "exceptional circumstances". The Housing White Paper seeks to clarify this further and states that land which has been previously developed should be considered first. Accordingly, it is sites such as Brentwood Community Hospital which should be removed from the Green Belt. This is further outlined below, which highlights the sites suitability. a. Site Suitability The site is located adjoining the existing settlement and residential area of Shenfield, and a proportion of the site within the Green Belt is currently an existing hardstanding forming a car parking area. The site is located in close proximity to public transport connections which provides links to a variety of everyday services and amenities. As previously identified, the site is currently partially located (25% of the site) within the Green Belt. However, due to the existing built form within and surrounding the site, and as evidenced in the Green Belt Study, the site provides little or no contribution towards the purposes of the Green Belt. The Council undertook a Green Belt Study (November, 2018) which assessed various parcels of Green Belt land within the district. The site fell within Site Assessment 186, which concluded as having low-moderate contribution to the Green Belt. Although considered as having a low-moderate contribution to the Green Belt, a Green Belt assessment is provided below to outline the development potential of the land at Brentwood Community Hospital. The assessment is based on the Green Belt purposes identified in the NPPF. This assessment is to enable the Council to determine the importance of the site in Green Belt terms, and to demonstrate that the site does not meet the five purposes of the Green Belt, so therefore should be removed. 1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas - The site is bounded on three sides by the existing built form of Brentwood. The surrounding built form includes residential dwellings to the north and west, and a draft residential allocation to the east. - The built up area would not spread further than the site's boundary due to the presence of a significant area of woodland adjacent. 2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another - The site falls between the settlements of Shenfield and Brentwood. Although the site falls between these two settlements, the built form of Shenfield and Brentwood already links through the existing built form on Shenfield Road and it is not this site that forms any gap rather the playing fields adjacent. - The site's built form also limits its purposes in restricting the two settlements from merging as it is clear that it is an existing built up area. 3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment - The site is bounded to the north, east, and west by the existing built form of Brentwood. - The site is bounded to the south by existing woodland. - Due to the site not being located in the countryside, its contribution toward this aim is limited. 4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns - The site is not located within a historic town.5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land - The site is located within an existing settlement and promotes the intensification of an existing community facility which already has its own facilities, amenities, and day-to-day services, or, the site could equally be redeveloped for the provision of residential dwellings should the land become surplus to the NHS's requirements. b. Sustainability The golden thread running through the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This means that developments which accord with the Local Plan should be approved without delay. The three pillars of sustainability within the NPPF are identified as Social, Environmental, and Economic; the definitions of these terms and the ways the proposals at Brentwood Community Hospital conform to these pillars are identified below. Social The NPPF defines socially sustainable development as those which contribute toward supporting a strong, vibrant and healthy community by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations, through a high quality built environment with accessible services and support of health, social and cultural wellbeing. The redevelopment of Brentwood Community Hospital would accord with the social pillar of sustainable development through the provision of an increased number of residential dwellings on a sustainably located site in order to help meet the Council's identified and growing need for housing. Should the Council fail to meet their identified housing target, there could be serious social instability caused including overcrowding of existing housing stock and undersupply of housing. In addition to this, the site could represent the opportunity for the delivery of affordable housing towards the Council's identified need, representing a further opportunity to deliver a socially sustainable development. Environmental The NPPF defines environmentally sustainable development as development which contributes to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment through improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, and minimising waste and pollution. A scheme at Brentwood Community Hospital could provide sustainably located residential dwellings within walking distance of existing services and amenities, reducing the need for future residents to travel long distances and reducing pollution and the use of finite resources. Alternatively, should the CCG seek to expand their existing facilities on site, the intensification of the existing healthcare services could help to ensure the healthcare facilities continue to be provided in a sustainable location. Economic The NPPF defines economically sustainable development as development which contributes toward building a strong, responsive, and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation. A residential scheme at Brentwood Community Hospital would accord with this pillar through the introduction of an increased number of residents into an existing urban area. These new residents will help to secure the economic viability and vitality of the existing local businesses and services through an increased customer base. The redevelopment of the site would also ensure that a higher provision of land is available for a land use which is identified as being highly demanded at this point in time ensuring that a sufficient supply of land is available in a sustainably located site.