I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

The proposed development within the Plan is highly concentrated within the A127 Corridor. This scale and concentration proposed will irrevocably harm the landscape, environment and Green Belt within this area (at a disproportionate level than the wider Borough).
Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor. Thurrock Council in particular is considering a site for 10,000 + homes on land adjacent to West Horndon village, which would in effect turn the village into a large town. The Plan does not take account of this. The Plan states that the area would remain surrounded by countryside but this would not be the case.
In my opinion a sustainable level of development within the A127 Corridor is limited to the development proposed at site RO2 (the West Horndon Industrial Estates). Even at this level however it would require a significant amount of infrastructure expenditure to ensure it is sustainable.

My family and I enjoy village life and want our village to remain a village however, appropriate development here (at the appropriate density and style to complement the existing village) to this maximum would improve the lives of West Horndon residents. It would still however double the size of our village, which in my opinion is the maximum that West Horndon could sustain and should be asked to contribute.

Throughout the development of the Plan, potentially viable alternative sites have been ignored. I believe the initial rejection of further growth in the A12 Corridor, or any material development in the North of the Borough, is not founded on sound analysis or hard evidence.

Given the scale of development proposed, the original "problems" identified including the need for new infrastructure are relevant wherever the development is sited. Greater diversification of the identified housing need will assist in improving deliverability, feasibility and the impact on local transport networks. In particular no account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The C2C rail line only has two tracks, whereas Shenfield has four and the trains are already well above capacity at peak times. The roads around the village (A127, A128) are characterised by standstills and queues in both the morning and evening peaks.

An additional 500 cars (assuming just 1 per property) would have a very material impact on already severely strained and congested roads. It is therefore just not feasible for these roads to cope with the proposed development at Dunton Hills Garden Village and the proposed development by other councils, even with investment. It is also impossible to see how the train capacity could be upgraded sufficiently.

I also strongly challenge that the land around West Horndon village is suitable for development because of the flood risk, which is already a problem in the village and would create significant issues when considering larger scale development around the village.

For all of the above reasons I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

The proposed development within the Plan is highly concentrated within the A127 Corridor. This scale and concentration proposed will irrevocably harm the landscape, environment and Green Belt within this area (at a disproportionate level than the wider Borough).
Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor. Thurrock Council in particular is considering a site for 10,000 + homes on land adjacent to West Horndon village, which would in effect turn the village into a large town. The Plan does not take account of this. The Plan states that the area would remain surrounded by countryside but this would not be the case.
In my opinion a sustainable level of development within the A127 Corridor is limited to the development proposed at site RO2 (the West Horndon Industrial Estates). Even at this level however it would require a significant amount of infrastructure expenditure to ensure it is sustainable.

My family and I enjoy village life and want our village to remain a village however, appropriate development here (at the appropriate density and style to complement the existing village) to this maximum would improve the lives of West Horndon residents. It would still however double the size of our village, which in my opinion is the maximum that West Horndon could sustain and should be asked to contribute.

Throughout the development of the Plan, potentially viable alternative sites have been ignored. I believe the initial rejection of further growth in the A12 Corridor, or any material development in the North of the Borough, is not founded on sound analysis or hard evidence.

Given the scale of development proposed, the original "problems" identified including the need for new infrastructure are relevant wherever the development is sited. Greater diversification of the identified housing need will assist in improving deliverability, feasibility and the impact on local transport networks. In particular no account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The C2C rail line only has two tracks, whereas Shenfield has four and the trains are already well above capacity at peak times. The roads around the village (A127, A128) are characterised by standstills and queues in both the morning and evening peaks.

An additional 500 cars (assuming just 1 per property) would have a very material impact on already severely strained and congested roads. It is therefore just not feasible for these roads to cope with the proposed development at Dunton Hills Garden Village and the proposed development by other councils, even with investment. It is also impossible to see how the train capacity could be upgraded sufficiently.

I also strongly challenge that the land around West Horndon village is suitable for development because of the flood risk, which is already a problem in the village and would create significant issues when considering larger scale development around the village.

For all of the above reasons I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

The proposed development within the Plan is highly concentrated within the A127 Corridor. This scale and concentration proposed will irrevocably harm the landscape, environment and Green Belt within this area (at a disproportionate level than the wider Borough).
Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor. Thurrock Council in particular is considering a site for 10,000 + homes on land adjacent to West Horndon village, which would in effect turn the village into a large town. The Plan does not take account of this. The Plan states that the area would remain surrounded by countryside but this would not be the case.
In my opinion a sustainable level of development within the A127 Corridor is limited to the development proposed at site RO2 (the West Horndon Industrial Estates). Even at this level however it would require a significant amount of infrastructure expenditure to ensure it is sustainable.

My family and I enjoy village life and want our village to remain a village however, appropriate development here (at the appropriate density and style to complement the existing village) to this maximum would improve the lives of West Horndon residents. It would still however double the size of our village, which in my opinion is the maximum that West Horndon could sustain and should be asked to contribute.

Throughout the development of the Plan, potentially viable alternative sites have been ignored. I believe the initial rejection of further growth in the A12 Corridor, or any material development in the North of the Borough, is not founded on sound analysis or hard evidence.

Given the scale of development proposed, the original "problems" identified including the need for new infrastructure are relevant wherever the development is sited. Greater diversification of the identified housing need will assist in improving deliverability, feasibility and the impact on local transport networks. In particular no account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The C2C rail line only has two tracks, whereas Shenfield has four and the trains are already well above capacity at peak times. The roads around the village (A127, A128) are characterised by standstills and queues in both the morning and evening peaks.

An additional 500 cars (assuming just 1 per property) would have a very material impact on already severely strained and congested roads. It is therefore just not feasible for these roads to cope with the proposed development at Dunton Hills Garden Village and the proposed development by other councils, even with investment. It is also impossible to see how the train capacity could be upgraded sufficiently.

I also strongly challenge that the land around West Horndon village is suitable for development because of the flood risk, which is already a problem in the village and would create significant issues when considering larger scale development around the village.

For all of the above reasons I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

The proposed development within the Plan is highly concentrated within the A127 Corridor. This scale and concentration proposed will irrevocably harm the landscape, environment and Green Belt within this area (at a disproportionate level than the wider Borough).
Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor. Thurrock Council in particular is considering a site for 10,000 + homes on land adjacent to West Horndon village, which would in effect turn the village into a large town. The Plan does not take account of this. The Plan states that the area would remain surrounded by countryside but this would not be the case.
In my opinion a sustainable level of development within the A127 Corridor is limited to the development proposed at site RO2 (the West Horndon Industrial Estates). Even at this level however it would require a significant amount of infrastructure expenditure to ensure it is sustainable.

My family and I enjoy village life and want our village to remain a village however, appropriate development here (at the appropriate density and style to complement the existing village) to this maximum would improve the lives of West Horndon residents. It would still however double the size of our village, which in my opinion is the maximum that West Horndon could sustain and should be asked to contribute.

Throughout the development of the Plan, potentially viable alternative sites have been ignored. I believe the initial rejection of further growth in the A12 Corridor, or any material development in the North of the Borough, is not founded on sound analysis or hard evidence.

Given the scale of development proposed, the original "problems" identified including the need for new infrastructure are relevant wherever the development is sited. Greater diversification of the identified housing need will assist in improving deliverability, feasibility and the impact on local transport networks. In particular no account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The C2C rail line only has two tracks, whereas Shenfield has four and the trains are already well above capacity at peak times. The roads around the village (A127, A128) are characterised by standstills and queues in both the morning and evening peaks.

An additional 500 cars (assuming just 1 per property) would have a very material impact on already severely strained and congested roads. It is therefore just not feasible for these roads to cope with the proposed development at Dunton Hills Garden Village and the proposed development by other councils, even with investment. It is also impossible to see how the train capacity could be upgraded sufficiently.

I also strongly challenge that the land around West Horndon village is suitable for development because of the flood risk, which is already a problem in the village and would create significant issues when considering larger scale development around the village.

For all of the above reasons I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

The proposed development within the Plan is highly concentrated within the A127 Corridor. This scale and concentration proposed will irrevocably harm the landscape, environment and Green Belt within this area (at a disproportionate level than the wider Borough).
Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor. Thurrock Council in particular is considering a site for 10,000 + homes on land adjacent to West Horndon village, which would in effect turn the village into a large town. The Plan does not take account of this. The Plan states that the area would remain surrounded by countryside but this would not be the case.
In my opinion a sustainable level of development within the A127 Corridor is limited to the development proposed at site RO2 (the West Horndon Industrial Estates). Even at this level however it would require a significant amount of infrastructure expenditure to ensure it is sustainable.

My family and I enjoy village life and want our village to remain a village however, appropriate development here (at the appropriate density and style to complement the existing village) to this maximum would improve the lives of West Horndon residents. It would still however double the size of our village, which in my opinion is the maximum that West Horndon could sustain and should be asked to contribute.

Throughout the development of the Plan, potentially viable alternative sites have been ignored. I believe the initial rejection of further growth in the A12 Corridor, or any material development in the North of the Borough, is not founded on sound analysis or hard evidence.

Given the scale of development proposed, the original "problems" identified including the need for new infrastructure are relevant wherever the development is sited. Greater diversification of the identified housing need will assist in improving deliverability, feasibility and the impact on local transport networks. In particular no account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The C2C rail line only has two tracks, whereas Shenfield has four and the trains are already well above capacity at peak times. The roads around the village (A127, A128) are characterised by standstills and queues in both the morning and evening peaks.

An additional 500 cars (assuming just 1 per property) would have a very material impact on already severely strained and congested roads. It is therefore just not feasible for these roads to cope with the proposed development at Dunton Hills Garden Village and the proposed development by other councils, even with investment. It is also impossible to see how the train capacity could be upgraded sufficiently.

I also strongly challenge that the land around West Horndon village is suitable for development because of the flood risk, which is already a problem in the village and would create significant issues when considering larger scale development around the village.

For all of the above reasons I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan. No account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The proposed development within the Plan is highly concentrated within the A127 Corridor. This scale and concentration proposed will irrevocably harm the landscape, environment and Green Belt within this area (at a disproportionate level than the wider Borough).
Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor. Thurrock Council in particular is considering a site for 10,000 + homes on land adjacent to West Horndon village, which would in effect turn the village into a large town. The Plan does not take account of this. The Plan states that the area would remain surrounded by countryside but this would not be the case.
In my opinion a sustainable level of development within the A127 Corridor is limited to the development proposed at site RO2 (the West Horndon Industrial Estates). Even at this level however it would require a significant amount of infrastructure expenditure to ensure it is sustainable.

My family and I enjoy village life and want our village to remain a village however, appropriate development here (at the appropriate density and style to complement the existing village) to this maximum would improve the lives of West Horndon residents. It would still however double the size of our village, which in my opinion is the maximum that West Horndon could sustain and should be asked to contribute.

Throughout the development of the Plan, potentially viable alternative sites have been ignored. I believe the initial rejection of further growth in the A12 Corridor, or any material development in the North of the Borough, is not founded on sound analysis or hard evidence.

Given the scale of development proposed, the original "problems" identified including the need for new infrastructure are relevant wherever the development is sited. Greater diversification of the identified housing need will assist in improving deliverability, feasibility and the impact on local transport networks. In particular no account seems to have been taken of the A12 upgrade or Crossrail.

The C2C rail line only has two tracks, whereas Shenfield has four and the trains are already well above capacity at peak times. The roads around the village (A127, A128) are characterised by standstills and queues in both the morning and evening peaks.

An additional 500 cars (assuming just 1 per property) would have a very material impact on already severely strained and congested roads. It is therefore just not feasible for these roads to cope with the proposed development at Dunton Hills Garden Village and the proposed development by other councils, even with investment. It is also impossible to see how the train capacity could be upgraded sufficiently.

I also strongly challenge that the land around West Horndon village is suitable for development because of the flood risk, which is already a problem in the village and would create significant issues when considering larger scale development around the village.

For all of the above reasons I urge Brentwood Borough Council to rethink its current proposals and to come up with a revised plan that spreads the housing needs more fairly and equally across the Borough so that no one community is impacted so severely as in the current Plan.

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.

Chelmsford City Council (CCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Regulation 19 Pre-submission Local Plan prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for examination.
Officers at CCC have been working collaboratively with BBC through the Duty to Co-operate as outlined in paragraph 1.11 of the Pre-Submission document. CCC has responded to previous iterations of the Brentwood Local Plan including the Draft Local Plan in 2016 and Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations in 2018.
CCC has the following comments on the consultation document:
Duty to Co-operate
BBC and CCC have engaged on strategic cross boundary matters. A Protocol for dealing with unmet housing needs requests has also been agreed between Essex Local Planning Authorities through the Essex Planning Officers' Association which has resulted in an effective joint mechanism being put in place. Furthermore, both Councils have also been involved in a joint the Gypsy, Traveller & Traveller Showpeople Accommodation Assessment with relevant other Essex Local Planning Authorities. CCC consider that the Duty to Co-operate has been fulfilled and will continue to work collaboratively where appropriate with BBC through the Duty to Co-operate.
Housing
It is noted that as a starting point the Local Plan sets out a housing requirement figure for Brentwood, as calculated using the standard method in the SHMA of 350dpa. CCC welcomes Brentwood Borough Council's commitment to significantly boost the supply of housing to meet the needs of the area and the decision to adopt a higher figure of 456dpa in anticipation of MHCLG intention to adjust the standardised methodology to safeguard against any potential uplift. When taking the supply buffer into account, the Local Plan provides for a total of 7,752 new homes over the plan period 2016-2033 setting a housing target of 456dpa. This is set out in Policy SP02:
Managing Growth which sets the housing delivery targets of an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033. BBC proposes to meet its own housing need within its administrative boundaries and has not approached neighbouring authorities under the Duty to Co-operate to request other authorities help accommodate any unmet needs. This is supported by CCC. Is it noted that the Brentwood Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) identified that there is a requirement of 13 additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be developed by 2033. With no current need identified for accommodation for travelling showpeople, a criteria-based
Policy HP11 Proposals For Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople would deal with any need that arises over the life of the Plan on windfall sites. Overall, the need is being met with the authority's administrative area.
On transit sites, CCC acknowledges the GTAA's recommendations to engage, through the Duty to Cooperate, with other Essex authorities in the future to review the need for transit sites. Further work on this is also being undertaken by Essex County Council to consider the need for these sites across Essex as a whole.
Overall CCC is supportive of the approach to housing need in the BBC Local Plan and do not raise any objections under soundness or legal compliance.
Employment
The Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) for Brentwood is the same as the Housing Market Area. Policy PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land makes provision for 5,000 additional jobs to be provided in the borough over the plan period. CCC is supportive of BBC approach to meeting the forecasted employments needs through allocating 47.39ha employment land as set out in Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations. The Local Plan allocates additional strategic employment land at Brentwood Enterprise Park. In addition, further employment land is allocated and policies in the Local Plan seek to protect existing employment land providing a mix and range of employment sites. Overall CCC is supportive of this approach and do not raise any objections under soundness or legal compliance.
The Spatial Strategy and Relevant Site Allocations
The Spatial Strategy primarily focuses growth within two key growth areas (Central Brentwood Growth Corridor and South Brentwood Growth Corridor) together with more limited growth outside these growth areas in Village Service Centres and larger villages (including Ingatestone and Blackmore in proximity to Chelmsford City Council's administrative area).
The growth areas comprise:
Central Brentwood Growth Corridor - brownfield land in Brentwood and Shenfield together with wider urban extensions in places around the Brentwood Urban Area and opportunities to grow Ingatestone Village through urban extension to the south, providing new housing and supporting employment.
South Brentwood Growth Corridor - strategic allocation at Dunton Hills Garden Village, a strategic allocation at M25 junction 29 (Brentwood Enterprise Park) providing most of the new employment land needed, together with brownfield opportunities through the redevelopment of existing industrial land in West Horndon.
Section 9 of the Local Plan identifies the locations at which new development will be located. For Chelmsford, sites of local in proximity to the Chelmsford area are around 161 dwellings (R21) and around 57 dwellings (R22) to be provided on new Local Plan allocations in Ingatestone, together with around 40 dwellings (R25) and around 30 dwellings (R26) allocated on sites in Blackmore. CCC supports BBC's proposed approach to housing and employment allocations which are unlikely to
have any obvious adverse cross-boundary impacts on Chelmsford.
However, it is crucial that the allocations are supported by the appropriate infrastructure, in particular highway and transportation schemes due to Brentwood's location on the A12/Greater Anglia road and rail corridor. It is noted that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan is a 'live' document and would be reviewed and published annually. To conclude, CCC is supportive of the Local Plan and does not raise any objections under soundness or legal compliance.

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.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Bidwells on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to Brentwood Borough Council's (hereafter referred to as "BBC") public consultation on the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan ("the emerging Plan") in respect of land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood ("the Site").
1.2 Crest Nicholson Eastern controls the entirety of the Site which is the subject of a proposed allocation in the emerging Plan under Policy R06 for the development of around 125 dwellings. Primarily, the consultation seeks responses regarding the soundness of the emerging Plan as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
1.3 Our comments on the emerging Plan are made having regard to the NPPF, which at paragraph 35 states "Plans are considered sound if they are:
● 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 crossboundary 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 this Framework."
1.4 Accordingly, these representations:
● Support the principle of the proposed allocation of land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood under Policy R06 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified and consistent with national policy; and
● Object to the allocation's indicative dwelling capacity because it would be unnecessarily restrictive of the deliverable quantum of development and is therefore ineffective. 1.5 Our response to the emerging Plan policies is provided within this report and in the enclosed completed Comments Form at Appendix 1. A discussion of the deliverability of the Site drawing upon technical evidence from the accompanying Design Development Framework prepared by Clague Architects (March 2019) is attached at Appendix 2 of these representations. 1.6 We formally request that our recommended amendment is taken into account for the Regulation 22 submission to the Secretary of State and, in accordance with Section 20(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, hereby formally request that Crest Nicholson Eastern is invited to participate at all hearing sessions relevant to Land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood. Written representations prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson Easterm In respect of Policy R06: Land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood
2.0 Support for the Spatial Policies
Chapter 2. A Borough of Villages
Settlement Hierarchy
2.1 Brentwood falls within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy, the highest-ranking settlement type. Paragraph 2.12 identifies that Brentwood and Shenfield "offer the most scope for development in accordance with sustainable development principles. Urban extensions into the Green Belt are proposed in specific locations with clear physical boundaries and accessible to local services and transport links."
2.2 Description of Category 1 sites appropriately aligns with the characteristics of Brentwood, in that it provides a wide range of services and employment opportunities, is highly accessible and well served by public transport. We consider Brentwood's placement at the top of the Settlement Hierarchy as appropriate.
2.3 Figure 2.3 (Settlement Hierarchy) states that development opportunities in Category 1 settlements including Brentwood "should focus on making the best use of land, with a higher density". We agree with this approach because it would ensure that the development potential of such suitable sites, including Land at Nags Head Lane, is maximised.
Chapter 3. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic
Objectives
Housing Need
2.4 Housing need is discussed at paragraphs 3.7 - 3.9. In planning for residential growth, the emerging Plan states its commitment to planning positively to increase the supply of new homes. The emerging Plan states it will allocate land to exceed the identified local housing need to provide flexibility in the supply and delivery of sites.
2.5 We support the approach to significantly boost the supply of new housing because it demonstrates that the Plan is positively prepared. This should mean that at the site-specific level, allocations for development, including the Land at Nags Head Lane, should seek to deliver the maximum quantum of development possible, taking account of site constraints and masterplans where applicable.
Transit-orientated Growth and the Growth Areas
2.6 Paragraphs 3.11 and 3.21-3.22 recognise the existing pattern of development and the presence of two key infrastructure corridors and that these inform the spatial approach to growth in the emerging Plan. These are the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, comprised of the A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street and the new Elizabeth Line; and the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor comprised of the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
2.7 Allocating development in these transit corridors ensures that new homes will be sustainably located, linked to existing service centres through proximity and accessibility to strategic transport infrastructure. We consider this an appropriate strategy.
2.8 Allocation of Land at Nags Head Lane fits appropriately with this approach because it falls within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor. The Bull bus stop is less than 100m from the Site, with routes into Brentwood town centre and Romford. The Site is less than 2 miles from Brentwood town centre and is within 500m of local shops, pubs and a health club. The site is easily accessible from the A12 and M25 and avoids directing vehicular traffic via the town centre of Brentwood. It is therefore a highly suitable site, sustainably located, with accessibility to a wide range of services, facilities and sources of employment reflected in its location within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy.
Borough Gateways
2.9 In considering spatial development principles, paragraphs 3.25 - 3.26 set out the aspiration for key allocations to deliver gateways that contribute to enhancing a positive impression of the Borough through public art and/or public realm improvements. Figure 3.3 identifies key gateway locations where developments within the local vicinity should enhance the positive impression of Brentwood upon arrival and for those passing by. We note this inclusion, also noting that Land at Nags Head Lane is located close to the east of the identified gateway at Brook Street. We acknowledge this policy intention and Crest Nicholson is prepared to make proportionate and reasonable contributions to enhancements to the Brook Street gateway as part of a planning permission for development of the site.
2.10 Paragraph 3.26 further recognises that sites in key gateway locations offer an opportunity to deliver schemes with higher densities. We support this intention because it would make efficient use of land in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 122 and 123.
Chapter 4. Managing Growth
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
2.11 This policy seeks to direct development to the site allocations set out in the Local Plan and within the highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Land at Nags Head Lane would accord with both of these principles, so we support this policy.
Chapter 6. Housing Provision
Policy HP03: Residential Density
2.12 Pursuant to the above, this policy seeks to define appropriate residential development densities with the caveat that individual schemes should employ a design-led approach to determine an appropriate, site-specific density. Generally, a density of 35 dwellings per hectare or higher will be sought on sites outside of town centres, district shopping centres and local centres. We consider that adopting standards such as this is appropriate, because it would ensure that land is used as efficiently as possible, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 123 which seeks to avoid houses being built at low densities in areas where there is an existing shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, such as Brentwood.
Chapter 8. Natural Environment
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt
2.13 We support the release of sites from the Green Belt for development as a justified approach given the lack of alternatives in the Borough. This is consistent with national policy, namely paragraph 136 of the NPPF, which makes allowance for the alteration of Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or updating of Plans where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.14 BBC recognises that exceptional circumstances exist and warrant the release of Green Belt to accommodate the Borough's housing need. As the Borough does not have any non-Green Belt greenfield land that falls outside of existing settlement boundaries, it falls on Green Belt land to accommodate a proportion of the overall housing requirement. BBC does not have sufficient available brownfield land that could deliver the Borough's housing requirements in a manner that would accord with other policy objectives. It would not be possible to develop brownfield sites alone at such high densities in a manner that would not cause detrimental impacts to the Borough's character or compromise the ability to deliver a broad mix of housing in accordance with Strategic
Objectives including SO1 and SO3.
2.15 Land at Nags Head Lane represents an entirely logical development site as an urban extension to development on the south-west of Brentwood. Physically enclosed between Nags Head Lane, the A1023, existing business and residential units and the railway line, the Site makes a "moderate" contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt according to the BBC Green Belt Study (November 2018). It should however be noted that the assessments of alternative sites range predominantly from moderate to high and the Site is therefore among the least sensitive performing Green Belt sites against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, justifying its release for allocation. Releasing sites such as this takes pressure from other land parcels that perform a more important Green Belt function and minimises the impact on the Green Belt as far as is possible, consistent with national policy.
3.0 Comments on Policy R06: Land at Nags Head
Lane, Brentwood
In Principle Support
3.1 We fully support the principle of allocating this Site for development. Crest Nicholson Eastern is committed to the delivery of the Site in accordance with policy criteria B (Development Principles) and C (Infrastructure Requirements) as discussed in greater detail below.
The Site is strategically well-placed
3.2 The Site is located on the south-western edge of Brentwood, in the south-west of the Borough. Firmly within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, the Site is well connected to strategic transport infrastructure comprised of the A12, linking to Chelmsford in the north-east and Romford to the south-west, and the Great Eastern Mainline railway to London Liverpool Street. Brentwood benefits from a station on this railway line, which is approximately 1.7 miles from the Site. The new Elizabeth Line will also serve this corridor with a station in Brentwood, providing further connections across London to Reading and Heathrow to the west. The site accords with the Local Plan's strategic objectives by locating development in the growth areas and main transit corridors.
3.3 The Site is located close to the key gateway location at the junction of the A12 and the M25 as identified in Figure 3.3 of the emerging Plan. Development on the edge of Brentwood would positively contribute to the sense of arrival to the town and this Site would represent an obvious candidate to fulfil BBC's Local Plan aspiration to contribute towards enhancing a positive impression of the Borough. Crest Nicholson Eastern is committed to ensuring this will be achieved at the appropriate stage of developing the proposals.
The Site is suitable
3.4 The site is served by local shops, pubs, restaurants and a health club within a 5-minute walk. There are bus stops located opposite the site with routes into the town centre, less than 2 miles away. Land at Nags Head Lane therefore benefits from excellent sustainability credentials, reflected in BBC's decision to allocate the site for residential development.
3.5 The site is very well enclosed with established permanent boundaries on all sides. It is bounded to the west by Nags Head Lane, the south by a railway cutting, the east by existing dwellings at Mascalls Gardens, and the north by commercial uses and residential plots. The site consists of private fields sub-divided by established trees and hedgerows, making only a "moderate" contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt according to the BBC Green Belt Study (November 2018). It should be noted that the assessments of alternative sites range predominantly from moderate to high and the Site is therefore among the least sensitive performing Green Belt sites against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt Contribution towards the 5-year housing land supply
3.6 We note that the Housing Trajectory contained in Appendix 1 of the emerging Plan anticipates housing delivery of the allocation from the years 2021/22 to 2025/26. As the accompanying Design Development Framework demonstrates that the Site is unencumbered in all respects, we consider that development could be delivered even earlier than this but nevertheless BBC's trajectory still falls within the five-year housing supply timeframe, so we concur with its general assumption and its accordance with NPPF paragraph 73 which seeks local planning authorities to identify an adequate supply of housing in the short term.
Crest Nicholson's credentials
3.7 The Site is controlled in its entirety by Crest Nicholson Eastern and is available and deliverable now to contribute to meeting the local housing need requirements in the emerging Plan and BBC's five-year housing land supply. Crest Nicholson is based locally in Brentwood and has a 50-year heritage of delivering community focused development. Crest prides itself on its focus for high quality design which has been recognised in its awards for National Housebuilder of the Year, twice in the last three years. Other recent accolades include Planning Magazine's Best National Housing Scheme over 500 homes, Evening Standard's Best Small Development and the Sunday Times' winner of the Outstanding Housing and Landscaping category.
Compliance with the draft Policy's Development Principles
3.8 Policy R06 sets out policy criteria to be considered when developing detailed proposals for the Site. These are set out in bold text below and are fully supported, with the exception of criterion A which is not listed here because it is discussed separately from paragraph 3.16 below. Our design response is summarised beneath each criterion:
B. Development Principles
a. Vehicular access via Nags Head Lane.
The accompanying Design Development Framework demonstrates that a suitable vehicular access would be achievable via Nags Head Lane.
b. Provision for pedestrian and cycle connections.
The Design Development Framework shows that a network of pedestrian and cycle connections would be provided.
c. Provision for public open space.
The indicative masterplan shows that a network of high quality public open space ould be provided.
d. Provide for sensitive landscaping along the north and eastern boundaries adjoining existing commercial development and residential dwellings Extensive landscaping is integral to the proposals for the Site, predominantly focused on the boundaries and along strategic green infrastructure corridors within the Site linking the public open spaces. The indicative masterplan shows green buffering along the northern and eastern boundaries adjoining existing commercial and residential development.
C. Infrastructure Requirements
a. The site is located within a Critical Drainage Area. This development may have the potential to impact on the Critical Drainage Area in respect of surface water flooding. As a result of this, the site is likely to require an individually designed mitigation scheme to address this issue.
The proposed drainage strategy for the Site includes Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) such as permeable paving, swales and ponds to alleviate the risk of surface water flooding associated with the Site's location within a Critical Drainage Area.
The allocation is deliverable
3.9 The accompanying indicative masterplan demonstrates that a scheme for approximately 150 new homes could be delivered on the Site. This takes account of specialist evidence in respect of landscape, access, utilities, drainage, noise and heritage as summarised in the accompanying Design Development Framework.
3.10 The masterplan proposes to retain and enhance the existing vegetation structure along the southern boundary of the Site, along Nags Head Lane to provide a robust edge to the development parcel and filter views into the Site, incorporate a sequence of open spaces and SuDS, retain the internal tree and hedgerow structure where appropriate as part of the internal network of green corridors and to plant trees along contours to filter views from the north (across the valley) and to contribute to amenity value within the Site.
3.11 In respect of access, the potential impact of development traffic on the operation of the Brook Street/Nags Head Lane/Wigley Bush Lane signal junction has been assessed. Whilst the forecast increase in traffic through the junction would be imperceptible, consideration has been given to modifications to improve the future operation of this junction. A proposed improvement scheme has been assessed, which comprises an additional short lane for ahead and left traffic on the Wigley Bush Lane approach, increased kerb radius and exit taper for the left turn into Wigley Bush Lane that allows the stop line to be moved closer to the junction, and a pedestrian crossing on the eastern arm of Brook Street. Junction capacity analysis has shown that the proposed improvements would more than mitigate the impact of development traffic, the result being an overall net benefit to junction capacity. The scheme would be compliant with policy guidance on transport and land use planning at both a national and local level and would have a positive impact in terms of junction capacity and pedestrian connectivity.
3.12 National Grid has confirmed a High Pressure (HP) Gas Main runs beneath the south west corner of the Site. The illustrative masterplan shows that a 28m corridor has been provided above the HP Main to allow for future access and maintenance and limit the risk of damage to the main. Following discussions with National Grid, the Health and Safety Executive has confirmed in writing that they would not object to the current indicative layout if submitted seeking planning permission.
3.13 A preliminary noise assessment has been undertaken to assess impacts arising from primary noise sources on the M25, A12, A1023, Nags Head Lane and railway noise from the adjacent Great Eastern Mainline. The preliminary assessment shows that no single noise source is dominant and that with appropriate layout and noise treatment to the most exposed properties, both internal and external ambient noise levels would be within the desirable range and would meet with applicable
standards.
3.14 The above demonstrates that Crest Nicholson has given due consideration to the deliverability of the allocation and proposes a responsive and well-designed masterplan.
3.15 Taking account of the above we fully support the principle of the Site's proposed allocation.
Objection to the amount of development
3.16 Policy criterion A. states that the site will provide "around 125 new homes of mixed size and type". We consider that this underplays the deliverable quantum of development the Site could accommodate and therefore object to this strand of the policy requirement because the Policy is
ineffective.
3.17 The Site has been proposed for allocation in the emerging Plan since the Draft Regulation 18 iteration published for consultation in 2016, but the original draft allocation was for the delivery of around 150 dwellings. Indeed, if the residential density standard of 35 dwellings per hectare from Policy HP03 is applied to the net developable area identified in the draft allocation of 4.35 hectares, the indicative dwelling yield would be 152.25 dwellings per hectare.
3.18 As emerging Policy HP03 requires (as we have discussed at para 2.12 above), a design-led approach to determining the appropriate, site-specific residential development density has been undertaken for the Site. The accompanying Design Development Framework articulates how approximately 150 dwellings could be delivered on the Site in a generously landscaped scheme incorporating a network of public open space incorporating SuDS features and a locally equipped area of play.
3.19 The BBC Sustainability Appraisal (SA) provides justification for the reduction in units onsite. At paragraph 9.7.2 it states:
"Focusing on proposed changes to the spatial strategy since 2016, points to note are -
● The proposal to reduce the number of homes delivered at Land east of Nag's Head
Lane is supported, given proximity to several listed buildings at Brook Street."
3.20 And at 9.10.2 it states:
"Finally, it is noted that a decision was taken to reduce the quantum of homes (C3) delivered at all four of the Green Belt sites proposed by the 2016 Draft Plan, namely Land off Doddinghurst Road, Land east of Nags Head Lane, Land at Honeypot Lane and Officers Meadow. The Landscape Cpacity Study finds three of these sites to have "medium" capacity, such that a decision to reduce the quantum of homes is tentatively supported; however, Land off Doddinghurst Road is identified as having "medium-high" landscape capacity."
3.21 We consider that these statements are not justified. Whilst the Nag's Head Inn is a Grade II listed building, the Built Heritage Assessment previously submitted with our Regulation 18 representations demonstrates that it once stood as a rural building surrounded by fields and outside the tiny hamlet of Brook Street, but today it is experienced as a road-side public house in the vicinity of residential and commercial development. The area to the south of the Inn, where the Site is located, is still characterised by fields subdivided by hedgerows and trees, however the visual relationship between the Inn and the fields that make up the Site is far less apparent since
topographical features, such as thick hedgerow that border Nags Head Lane, obscure the views. Furthermore, the significance of the Inn is considered to lie within its historical and architectural value. The visual relationship between the Inn and the Site is far less than the visual connectionbetween the Inn and the fields to the south-west, which are directly behind the listed building.
3.22 Accordingly, the impact of Crest Nicholson's accompanying development proposals, with mitigation incorporating retained vegetation, contouring and open green space close to the listed building, mean that the visual impact of the setting of the listed building would be minimal, resulting in only a minor level of less than substantial harm. Given the need to promote sustainable patterns of development when Green Belt boundaries are being re-drawn (NPPF para 138), we consider the arbitrary reduction in unit numbers is not properly justified and should be amended to reflect what could reasonably be achieved on the site, taking account of Crest Nicholson's masterplanned approach.
3.23 With landscape considerations at the forefront of the design process, delivery of approximately 150 dwellings on the Site is demonstrated to the fully achievable without significant harm to the landscape in the accompanying Design Development Framework. Contained within the Design Development Framework is a summary of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, setting out the key landscape characteristics and the principal considerations for the identification of opportunities and constraints on the Site. This LVIA concludes that the scheme can deliver approximately 150 dwellings whilst mitigating landscape impacts effectively. The detail of the design approach taken to achieve this is discussed further in the section below.
3.24 Having taken the above design-led approach and determined that a quantum of development of approximately 150 dwellings is entirely achievable, the emerging Plan allocation should reflect this in order to ensure best use of land and maximise the development potential. The policies we have commented on above demonstrate a clear intention of BBC to seek to deliver dwellings beyond the local housing need target and this is reflected in national policy, where the NPPF requires the highest density possible on sites, particularly in areas where the land supply is significantly constrained as is the case in the predominantly Green Belt Borough of Brentwood.
3.25 We are aware that since the earlier iterations of the emerging Plan, the quantum of development proposed in the Dunton Hills Garden Village strategic allocation has increased from 2,500 dwellings in the emerging Plan period to 2,700. Other allocations, including this site which is deliverable in the short-term, should similarly seek to maximise delivery in line with the residential density standards and the design-led approach in Policy HP03 as the appropriate method for assessing the deliverable dwelling yield.
3.26 We recommend that Policy R06 reinstates the Draft Local Plan allocation quantum of approximately 150 dwellings. This would ensure that the emerging Plan is positively prepared in its ambition to maximise the delivery of new homes above and beyond the local housing need target, justified in its strategy for ensuring the best use of land for development and consistent with national policy in delivering an optimum residential density, particularly in an area with a significantly constrained land supply.
Changes necessary to make the Plan sound
3.27 Taking account of the above, we recommend that Policy R06 criterion A reinstates the Draft Local Plan's proposed quantum of development for the Site. Accordingly, it should say "provision for approximately 150 new homes of mixed size and type".
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to BBC's emerging Plan consultation in respect of the Site.
4.2 Crest Nicholson controls the land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood, which is proposed for allocation under Policy R06.
4.3 We:
● Support the principle of the proposed allocation of Land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood under Policy R06 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified and consistent with national policy; and
● Object to the allocation's indicative dwelling capacity because it would be unnecessarily restrictive of the deliverable quantum of development and is therefore ineffective.
4.4 We fully support the principle of the allocation of the Site as a positively prepared and justified policy. Allocating sites to exceed the identified local housing need is consistent with national policy, whereby housing targets are viewed as a minimum and should be exceeded where possible to ensure flexibility in housing delivery. The Site is a logical and sustainable development site to contribute dwellings towards achieving the Local Plan strategy, well related to the settlement of Brentwood and within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor with excellent links to strategic transport infrastructure.
4.5 We object to the quantum of development quoted in the Site allocation. The Site has been included as an allocation in the emerging Plan since 2016 and the original allocation planned for 150 dwellings, based on our masterplanned approach to development set out in the accompanying Development Framework Document. The reduction to 125 dwellings in the Pre-Submission Local Plan does not align with the technical evidence and design work accompanying these representations, that demonstrates that the Site can appropriately accommodate approximately 150 dwellings taking account of the site-specific constraints and opportunities. In light of emerging Plan Policy HP03, the density of development should be maximised through a design-led approach. The quoted quantum of 125 dwellings also falls short of the standard density figure of 35 dwellings per hectare stated in Policy HP03.
4.6 In order to make the Local Plan sound, we recommend that BBC reinstates the Preferred Options draft Local Plan quantum of the proposed Site allocation to approximately 150 dwellings, to make better use of the land and maximise delivery.
4.7 Subject to the above amendment, we consider the emerging Local Plan satisfies the tests for soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust ("EPUT") in response to Brentwood Borough Council's ("BBC") public consultation on the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan ("the emerging Plan") in respect of land off Warley Hill, Warley ("the Site"). The land the subject of these representations is shown on the accompanying Site Location Plan at Appendix 1.
1.2 EPUT owns the Site which is the subject of a proposed allocation in the emerging Plan for the development of around 43 dwellings. Primarily, the consultation seeks responses regarding the soundness of the emerging Plan as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in February 2019.
1.3 Our comments on the emerging Plan are made having regard to the NPPF, which at paragraph 35 states "Plans are considered sound if they are:
● 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 rossboundary 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 this Framework."
1.4 Accordingly, these representations fully support the proposed allocation of land off Warley Hill under Policy R09 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
1.5 Our response to the emerging Plan's strategic policies is provided below in the following section, with our comments on the proposed site allocation at Policy R09 thereafter. These representations are supported by:
● A completed version of the Comments Form at Appendix 2 of this report; and
● Urban Design Strategy at Appendix 3 of this report.
2.0 Our Support for the Strategic Policies
Chapter 2. A Borough of Villages
Settlement Hierarchy
2.1 Warley falls within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy, the highest anking settlement type. Paragraph 2.11 identifies that the Brentwood Urban Area, which includes Warley, and Shenfield offer the most scope for growth in accordance with sustainable development principles. Urban extensions into the Green Belt are proposed in specific locations with clear physical boundaries and accessible to local services and transport links.
2.2 Category 1 sites are described in Figure 2.3 as "providing a wide range of services and opportunities for employment, retail, education, health and leisure facilities to the immediate residential areas as well as to the wider population in the borough. They are typically highly accessible and well served by public transport provision, including rail services, and existing infrastructure."
2.3 This description appropriately aligns with the characteristics of Warley as part of the Brentwood Urban Area, in that it provides a wide range of services and employment opportunities, is highly accessible and well served by public transport - this is demonstrated by being only 800m from Brentwood mainline / Crossrail station. We consider that Brentwood Urban Area's placement at the top of the Settlement Hierarchy, including Warley, is appropriate and justified.
Chapter 3. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic
Objectives
Housing Need
2.4 Housing need is discussed at paragraphs 3.7 - 3.9 of the consultation document. In planning for residential growth, the emerging Plan states its commitment to planning positively to increase the supply of new homes. The emerging Plan states it will allocate land to exceed the identified local housing need to provide flexibility in the supply and delivery of sites. We support the approach to significantly boost the supply of new housing because it demonstrates that the Plan is positively prepared.
2.5 The flexibility benefits of allocating sites to exceed the identified local housing need can only be realised if the supply of those sites is not unduly restricted to arbitrary time periods. The Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory identifies anticipated delivery timescales for allocated sites, but this should not prejudice the early delivery of sites anticipated to be built out later in the emerging Local Plan period. In order to be considered positively prepared, allocated sites should be delivered as soon as they are available.
Transit-orientated Growth and the Growth Areas
2.6 Paragraphs 3.11 and 3.21-3.22 recognise the existing pattern of development and the presence of two key infrastructure corridors and that these inform the spatial approach to growth in the emerging Plan. These are the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, comprised of the A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street and the new Elizabeth Line/Crossrail; and the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor comprised of the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
2.7 Allocating development in these transit corridors ensures that new homes will be sustainably located, linked to existing service centres through proximity and accessibility to strategic transport infrastructure. We consider this an appropriate and justified strategy.
2.8 Allocation of Land off Warley Hill fits appropriately with this approach because it is located within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, approximately 800 metres from Brentwood mainline / Elizabeth line/Crossrail station. Warley Hill, Albert Street and Walter Boyce Centre bus stops are all less than 100m from the Site, with routes into Brentwood town centre and Romford. The Site is less than 2 miles from Brentwood town centre, which offers public transport routes to Grays, South Ockendon, Chelmsford city centre, Basildon town centre, Billericay and Shenfield among other destinations. It is within 300m of a local supermarket, petrol station, sandwich bar, GP surgery, primary school and employment opportunities. The site is easily accessible from the A12 and M25.
2.9 Land off Warley Hill is therefore a highly suitable site, sustainably located in the heart of the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, with accessibility to a wide range of services, facilities and sources of employment reflected in its location within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy. With such infrastructure already in place around the Site, delivery of dwellings can commence imminently, and the Site should not be held back to latter parts of the emerging Local Plan period in line with the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory.
Chapter 4. Managing Growth
Policy SP01 Sustainable Development
2.10 This policy advocates a positive approach to considering developments that accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. Clearly this is consistent with national policy and we support this approach. Paragraph C of the policy aligns with the NPPF requirement for development that accords with the emerging Local Plan to be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Land off Warley Hill is a proposed allocation and a planning application brought forward for the development of the site in accordance with this and should therefore be approved without delay.
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
2.11 This policy seeks to direct development to the site allocations set out in the Local Plan and within the highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Land off Warley Hill would accord with both of these principles, so we support this policy.
Chapter 8. Natural Environment
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt (8.113)
2.12 We support the release of sites from the Green Belt for development as a justified approach given the lack of alternatives in the Borough. This is consistent with national policy, namely paragraph 136 of the NPPF, which makes allowance for the alteration of Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or updating of Plans where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.13 BBC recognises that Green Belt release is necessary to meet the Borough's housing needs. BBC has insufficient available brownfield land within existing urban areas to deliver this need. It falls on Green Belt land to accommodate a proportion of the overall housing requirement. Within this context it therefore follows that the most suitable available brownfield sites within the Green Belt should be allocated for residential development.
2.14 Land off Warley Hill represents an entirely suitable development site as an urban extension to development on the south of Brentwood Urban Area. With existing residential and commercial development to the south and east, the former Warley Hospital buildings to the north-west and Pastoral Way to the north, the Site is identified as making only a "moderate" contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt according to the BBC Green Belt Study (November 2018). It should be noted that the assessments of alternative sites range predominantly from moderate to high and the Site is therefore among the least sensitive performing Green Belt sites against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, justifying its release for allocation.
Releasing sites such as this takes pressure from other land parcels that perform a more important Green Belt function and minimises the impact on the Green Belt as far as is possible, consistent with national policy.
3.0 Our Support for Policy R09: Land off Warley Hill
3.1 We fully support the allocation of this Site for residential development and EPUT is committed to the delivery of the Site in accordance with the criteria set out in policy R09. This is for the reasons elow.
The Site is surplus to NHS requirements
3.2 The Site is sustainably located, previously developed, surplus to its former public sector requirements and is currently vacant. It contains 6 buildings with associated outbuildings and structures. These buildings were formerly used to support the provision of NHS services and was formerly part of the wider Warley Hospital site that has now been redeveloped for housing. The Site was originally developed in the 1930s and initially provided staff accommodation but more recently the existing buildings have also been used for various NHS health care-related purposes, including a drop-in service and care for people with learning difficulties. This was the case up until February 2012 when the need for the facility by the NHS ceased and the properties were vacated.
3.3 Essex Partnership University NHS Trust (EPUT) currently maintains the Site but the prolonged vacancy has increased the risk of the following issues occurring:
● Vandalism of the buildings;
● Anti-social behaviour;
● Unauthorised occupation of the buildings;
● Neighbouring amenity being jeopardised;
● Vermin nuisance to local residents; and/or
● Landscaping / trees becoming overgrown.
3.4 These are practical reasons to support the redevelopment of the Site in the short term. In addition, maintaining and securing the current buildings costs the NHS money and these finances may be better used in a positive way to support improved healthcare services. The Site's removal from the Green Belt is fully justified
3.5 We support the Site's removal from the Green Belt because this is consistent with national planning policy. BBC recognises that exceptional circumstances exist and warrant the release of Green Belt to accommodate the Borough's housing need, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 135. Furthermore, development of the site would contribute towards sustainable patterns of development because the site is located within the heart of the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, consistent with NPPF paragraph 138, and adjacent to the existing development boundary of the Brentwood Urban Area.
3.6 Paragraph 139 of the NPPF states "when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should...define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent." The B186, Warley Hill, along the Site's eastern boundary, currently forms the Green Belt boundary. The Site is bounded to the west by Clement's Wood, designated as an ancient woodland, secondary woodland habitat and a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) as described in the Brentwood Borough Local Wildlife Site Review (2012). The woodland's designated status on the western boundary of the Site provides certainty that the redefinition of the Green Belt boundary would follow this feature would be strong, recognisable and permanent, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 139. For ease of reference, we have included an extract of the designated site.
Above: Extract from BBC's Local Wildlife Site Review: Bre61 Clement's Wood - the Site is adjacent to eastern boundary of Clement's Wood.
3.7 The Site is controlled in its entirety by EPUT and is available and deliverable now to contribute to meeting the local housing need requirements in the emerging Plan and BBC's five-year housing land supply. The deliverability of the masterplan proposals for the Site is demonstrated further in the section below.
Compliance with Policy R09's Development Principles
3.8 The extract below shows the allocation within the consultation document:
3.9 Policy R09 also sets out specific Development Principles to be considered when developing detailed proposals for the Site. These are set out and underlined below and we fully support them. Our design response is summarised beneath each criterion:
A. Amount and Type of Development
a. provision for around 43 new homes of mixed size and type:
We fully support this quantum of development and the accompanying Urban Design Strategy demonstrates the deliverability of this quantum of development on the Site.
B. Development Principles
a. vehicular access via Pastoral Way:
The accompanying masterplan in the Urban Design Strategy confirms that vehicular access would be provided via Pastoral Way, where there is a current vehicle access into the Site.
b. preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings:
The Heritage Assessment (summarised within the Urban Design Strategy) concludes that The Firs and Lyndhurst buildings are not listed and can be demolished and Shenleigh, Bramley and Beeches buildings are curtilage listed but are relatively ordinary in appearance and can be demolished. Greenwoods is similarly listed and of architectural value, so is proposed for retention within the scheme. The Tower House at Warley Hospital is also a grade II listed structure and the masterplan includes extensive tree belts and open space in its vicinity to preserve the setting.
c. provide for sensitive landscaping throughout the site and consider the need for the retention of some existing trees on site where appropriate:
The masterplan shows a generously landscaped scheme, with existing trees of value retained and the provision of open space and landscaping throughout.
C. Infrastructure Requirements
a. the site is located within a Critical Drainage Area. This development may have the potential to impact on the Critical Drainage Area in respect of surface water flooding. As a result of this, the site is likely to require an individually designed mitigation scheme to address this issue:
The inclusion of significant areas of landscaping and open space provides opportunities o deliver a bespoke drainage strategy on the Site, which would be designed in detail at he appropriate stage of the development of the proposals.
Constraints and Opportunities
3.10 The accompanying Urban Design Strategy provides an assessment of the opportunities and constraints of the Site, summarised by the following key points:
● Green Belt: The Site is currently located within the Green Belt although the emerging Local Plan proposes its removal and allocation for residential development.
● Arboriculture: There are significant existing trees on the Site with related constraints, particularly Category A and B to be retained and the presence of Tree Preservation Order TPO 10/91. Presence of Ancient Woodland within Clement's Wood.
● Heritage: Presence of heritage building 'Greenwoods' and the setting of the Listed Victorian Water Tower, both of which are considered worthy of retention.
● Biodiversity and open space: There are opportunities to enhance the biodiversity offering on the Site and potentially through the retention of existing green open space. Bats, birds and breeding mammals surveys are necessary which may determine further ecological constraints. These surveys would be undertaken at an appropriate stage of the development of the proposals.
● Cyclists and pedestrians: It is necessary to provide adequate circulation routes and provision for cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian connections to Warley Hill are necessary for pedestrians to access public transport bus routes.
Our Design Approach
3.11 In responding to the opportunities and constraints, the detailed design for the Site will provide highquality development in a landscape-led scheme, illustratively depicted in the accompanying Urban Design Strategy at Appendix 3 of this report and as shown below:
Above: Indicative Layout contained within the accompanying Urban Design Strategy
3.12 The indicative masterplan contains the following key features:
● Protection of the existing listed building Greenwoods;
● Creating a more appropriate and grander setting for the adjacent Listed Water Tower through the careful placement of buildings and open space;
● Protection and retention of existing trees, introduction of a new planting scheme and biodiversity measures;
● Integration of a mix of dwelling types including detached houses, town houses, and potentially live-work units;
● Creation of a more curvaceous form to the site access road and greater connectivity to the wider area.
3.13 This demonstrates that a high-quality development scheme incorporating substantial areas of landscaping and open space can be delivered alongside approximately 43 dwellings in a highly sustainable location.
Contribution towards the 5-year housing land supply
3.14 EPUT is fully committed to realising the delivery of the allocated development in the short-term and intends to engage in formal pre-application discussions with BBC imminently with the intention of progressing with an outline application as soon as is reasonably possible.
3.15 BBC's delivery assumptions are that the allocation would be completed within years 2023/4 and 2024/5. Whilst we consider this to be pessimistic, it does fall within the first five years from now so we concur with the assessment that the allocation would contribute towards the five-year supply. Securing this allocation would also ensure that BBC would maintain a strong and varied portfolio of sites that can deliver immediately following adoption of the Local Plan and underpin supply pipeline whilst the large strategic sites undergo the requisite lead-in.
3.16 We therefore fully support Policy R09.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust in response to BBC's emerging Plan consultation in respect of Land off Warley Hill. EPUT owns the Site.
4.2 We support the proposed allocation of Land off Warley Hill under Policy R09 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified and consistent with national policy. 4.3 Allocating sites to exceed the identified local housing need is consistent with national policy, whereby housing targets are viewed as a minimum and should be exceeded where possible toensure flexibility in housing delivery. We also support the proposed policies relating to Growth Areas, the Settlement Hierarchy, Managing Growth and the general approach to directing growth to the most sustainable locations. BBC recognises that exceptional circumstances exist and warrant the release of Green Belt to accommodate the Borough's housing need.
4.4 The Land off Warley hill is located within the heart of the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, 800m from Brentwood Crossrail station, with good accessibility to key services and facilities as well as the strategic road network, train links to London and other public transport. Several primary and secondary schools are within a reasonable distance and the characteristics of the site, with softly undulating land and an abundance of trees and hedgerows in the setting of the Water Tower heritage asset, offer a unique opportunity for high-quality, aesthetically pleasing homes.
4.5 As vacant previously developed, surplus public-sector land, the site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver homes on brownfield land in line with policy direction in the NPPF and would make best use of land currently costing the NHS money in maintenance and upkeep.
4.6 We therefore support BBC in allocating the Site for residential development.
4.7 Taking account of the above, we would seek to support BBC in its defence of Policy R09 at Examination and we therefore consider it appropriate to participate at the oral part of the Examination in Public to enable discussion of the points we have raised.

Land at Hanging Hill Lane should be allocated in Hutton to ensure the sustainable
growth of the settlement, and to ensure the soundness of the Local Plan.

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of Marden Homes Ltd in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council Consultation Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19), and in particular with regards to our client's land adjacent to 7 Hanging Hill Lane, Hutton, Brentwood (ref. 284). A plan showing the site is provided at Appendix 1 of this representation.
1.2 Representations have previously been made on behalf of Marden Homes Ltd and in respect of Site 284 land adjacent to 7 Hanging Hill Lane on the Brentwood Borough Council Preferred Site Allocation Consultation Document (Regulation 18) in March 2018.
1.3 Site 284 lies to the south of Hutton and is adjacent to existing development. It measures approximately 0.9ha and it is proposed that the majority of the site is suitable for development. The front of the site is made up of a number of derelict sheds and structures which are single storey in height, along with dense vegetation. The majority of the site comprises grassland. The site is situated within the Green Belt.
1.4 Site 284 has been discounted as a site for residential development through the Local Plan process, for reasons which are considered in further detail later within this representation. We consider the rejection of the site to be unjustified, and to result in a Pre-Submission Local Plan (PSLP) which does not promote sustainable development.
1.5 The allocation of the site at Hanging Hill Lane, Hutton, would represent a sustainable and deliverable proposal for residential development to help meet housing need over the coming plan period. This representation sets out comments on the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan, as well as providing detail on the sustainability and deliverability of the site with regards to technical considerations and the latest assessment work.
2. Brentwood Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation
Plan Period
2.1. The Draft Local Plan is proposed to guide development in the Brentwood Borough until 2033. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) clearly states at Paragraph 22 that strategic policies within Local Plans should look ahead over a minimum of 15 years.
2.2. At this stage it would be optimistic to assume that the adoption of the Draft Plan which forms the subject of this representation will happen within 2019 and therefore the plan will only address development needs in the area for a maximum of 14 years.
2.3. This shortfall is particularly relevant in respect of Green Belt, whereby a failure to ensure that development needs are planned for over a sufficient period of time would likely result in an early review of Green Belt being required. This review ahead of a new Local Plan would be contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 136), and also undermines one of the two essential characteristics of the Green Belt: its permanence (NPPF, Paragraph 133).
Total Housing Requirement
2.4. The required housing need figures as calculated through the Borough's SHMA, follows national guidance using the Standard Method (as per the NPPF and respective Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 2018). Paragraph 4.13 of the PSLP states that the Borough's housing requirement is 350 new homes per year.
2.5. However, the PPG now confirms that the 2014-based subnational household projection should be used to calculate housing requirements using the Standard Method (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220).
2.6. On this basis, the relevant subnational population projections indicate an average annual increase of 293.2 households in the Borough between 2019 and 2029. The latest (2017) ratio of median house price to median gross annual workplace-based earnings for the Borough published by the ONS is 11.23. Once the Standard Method is applied using these figures this results in a requirement of 452 dwellings per annum.
2.7. The NPPF requires for Local Plans to meet this need as a minimum, whilst also allowing sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change.
2.8. As mentioned previously, the Plan should also ensure that the revised Green Belt boundary should be robust enough to be maintained beyond the Plan period and therefore account for development needs beyond 2033 (or a revised later end to the Plan period to ensure strategic policies will cover at least 15 years).
2.9. A further factor is the need to consider unmet needs of neighbouring authorities (NPPF paragraph 35). In respect of this, we note in particular that Epping Forest District Council is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a Local Plan (at the time of writing it is currently being examined) which proposes to deliver 11,400 dwellings between 011 and 2033 (518 dwellings per annum), against a requirement (based on the Standard Method) of 944 dwellings per annum. We are not aware of any objection to this approach from Brentwood Borough Council, but neither is there any indication that the PSLP addresses any of this unmet need.
2.10. The PSLP considers it appropriate to apply a 20% uplift to the identified housing target of 350 dwellings per annum, resulting in a proposed target of 456 dwellings per annum. The rationale for this buffer is unclear with separate references to the buffer advising that it allows for an additional housing land supply to be maintained, but also that it serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard methodology for calculating housing need, pending the outcome of the Government's 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance'.
2.11. Despite the outcome of the technical consultation now having been confirmed, the proposed annual housing target of the PSLP only fractionally exceeds the minimum housing requirement derived from the Standard Method, and therefore does not provide any flexibility, Green Belt protection or unmet need from neighbouring authorities in addition to the minimum requirement. We consider that the Plan in its current form is ineffective. It has not been positively prepared to provide for the appropriate level of contingency for housing delivery, nor does it comply with national planning policies in this regard. As such we consider the PSLP to be unsound.
2.12. We therefore consider that the housing need within the PSLP should be amended to at least ensure that an additional year's worth of housing can be accommodated for, and so that the relevant strategic policies of the Plan can cover 15 years from adoption. Realistically, we consider that the Council may actually need an additional 2 years worth of housing in order to support a plan which runs to 2035. Therefore one additional year should be regarded as the minimum.
2.13. Moreover, in respect of the fact that the authority is predominantly Green Belt, even if the plan period is extended until 2035, policies should account for potential development needs beyond this period. Allocating further sites for housing, like sites at Hanging Hill Lane, would provide additional housing delivery in a sustainable location, and would therefore help to ensure that the Draft Local Plan can be found sound.
Five-year Housing Land Supply and Housing Trajectory
2.14. Councils are required to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply at any point in the plan period (Paragraph: 038 Reference ID: 3-038-20180913).
2.15. At paragraph 73 of the NPPF it confirms that a 20% buffer should be applied to the initial calculation for a five year housing land supply requirement, in the event that the results of the Housing Delivery Test show for delivery to have fallen below 85% of the requirement for the Borough. The PPG (Paragraph: 037 Reference ID: 3-037- 20180913) also confirms that the requirement for a 20% buffer also applies where a Local Planning Authority are seeking to confirm their five-year housing land supply through a recently adopted Local Plan.
2.16. The results of the 2018 Housing Delivery Test showed that Brentwood Borough Council delivered just 50% of its housing requirements over the last three years. This is well below the threshold of 20% as required by national guidance.
2.17. The Borough's most recent five-year housing land supply figure, as reported in their' Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement as at 31 March 2018' (November 2018) ('HLSS') is 4.1 years. This is predicated on a requirement which, when considered in relation to the latest guidance, understates need; and a supply which, again when considered in relation to latest guidance, overstates supply. As such, the actual housing land supply is considerably less.
2.18. Looking at this in detail, the HLSS considers an annual need of 343 dwellings, resulting in a total requirement once the 20% has been applied of 2,058 dwellings. However, applying the latest guidance and the Standard Method, the Borough's housing requirement is 452 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% buffer, this results in a five-year requirement of 2,712 dwellings.
2.19. The HLSS includes sites without detailed planning permission within their supply and without evidence such sites will be delivered within five years. As per the NPPF, such sites cannot be considered deliverable for the purposes of the five-year housing land supply. Table 1 of the HLSS suggests that at least 1,042 dwellings in the reported supply did not have planning permission. Once these are removed from the supply calculation, the five-year supply comprises 653 dwellings. It is unclear if and how many of the dwellings categorised as having extant planning permission are on major sites which only benefit from outline permission. These sites would also have to be discounted. As such, the figure of 653 dwellings may overstate housing supply.
2.20. A five-year supply of 653 dwellings compared to a requirement of 2,712 represents a 1.2-year housing land supply. This acute housing land supply shortage demonstrates the importance of allocating sites through the Local Plan which can deliver early in the plan period, and support the existing supply of housing. It also emphasises the need to avoid over-reliance on large strategic sites which inevitably take longer to deliver.
2.21. The housing trajectory provided at Appendix 1 to the PSLP projects that it will enable completion of 2,305 dwellings between 2019/20 and 2023/24.
2.22. Having regard to the Standard Method and the need to apply a 20% buffer to the housing requirement, the total five-year requirement for the Borough is 2,712 dwellings. Therefore, even before critical review of the supply, the PSLP will not provide a five-year supply of housing.
2.23. Furthermore, Dunton Hills Garden Village is a proposed major strategic development that is intended to provide 4,000 dwellings, 5.5 hectares of employment land, two new primary schools, secondary school, new village shopping centre, new transport infrastructure and new community and health infrastructure. The delivery of Dunston Hills will be dependent on the coordination and input of multiple landowners, developers, infrastructure providers and other relevant stakeholders.
2.24. Once allocated, the PSLP proposed that a masterplan and design guidance will be required. Following this, an outline application will need to be prepared, submitted and determined; followed by reserved matters. It will also be necessary to discharge all planning conditions and S106 obligations.
2.25. We therefore question how likely the 100 homes at Dunton Hills will be completed by 2022/23. Of course, Dunton Hills can still form part of a sound Local Plan, however this does demonstrate that the reliance on large strategic sites for shorter term housing delivery is not appropriate. Additional smaller sites are capable of providing homes through the early years of a plan period and should be allocated through the PSLP to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.26. Whilst the plan can demonstrate housing delivery appropriate to meet minimum recognised requirements, it is evident that the suggested inability of the plan to ensure a consistent five-year supply is not consistent with national policy. National Policy requires that local planning authorities should identify and update a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years' worth of housing against their housing requirement set out in the adopted strategic policies, on an annual basis.
The PSLP should support this requirement through the allocation of smaller scale sites that can be delivered over a shorter time period, in order to be found sound. Land at Hanging Hill Lane, could cater to this need. Its deliverability is discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections.
Proposed Approach to Hutton
2.27. Hutton is recognised as Category 1 - 'a main town' within the PLSP's settlement hierarchy. Hutton is the second largest settlement in the Borough, with an approximate population 15,578 (according to the 2011 Census). It has an established local centre which benefits, from a range of services, facilities, access to public transport, and employment opportunities.
2.28. Hutton is well-connected in respect of regional and national infrastructure, situated approximately 30km from Central London, 12km from Chelmsford, accessible from the A12 or national rail services.
2.29. Hutton is therefore a highly sustainable location, and makes it an ideal location to accommodate a proportion of Brentwood's housing need. The Local Plan should manage growth of such settlements to sustain and enhance their vitality.
2.30. The PSLP proposes no growth for Hutton, despite its identification as a Category 1 settlement. This is in direct contrast to the level of growth afforded to other settlements which are also identified as Category 1 or are below Hutton within the Borough's settlement hierarchy. We therefore have concerns that the PSLP is failing to support the sustainable growth of Hutton and this omission is unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.
2.31. Land at Hanging Hill Lane should be allocated in Hutton to ensure the sustainable growth of the settlement, and to ensure the soundness of the Local Plan.
Green Belt
2.32. A Green Belt Study (November 2018) supports the PSLP. This study provides an assessment of Green Belt parcels against the five purposes of the Green Belt, as set ut within the NPPF.
2.33. The study includes an 'assessment of Housing Sites (being considered as part of the SHLAA) within the Green Belt and their relative contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt designation'.
2.34. The site has been assessed against the five purposes of the Green Belt, as part of the Green Belt Study methodology as follows:
Purpose 1: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas
Parcel 14 is defined by the Council as 'partly contained', and recognises that it abuts a large built up area. This categorisation does however advise that the boundary is 'weak/degraded/unclear'. Site 284 abuts a large built-up area on two out of four boundaries, the remaining boundaries are bounded by established vegetation that could be incorporated and enhanced as part of a landscaping scheme. We consider that the site boundaries are clearly defined and the site is well contained. A conclusion of containment should not consider built form exclusively.
Purpose 2: To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another The site is adjacent to the eastern/south-eastern limit of Hutton Mount. The Green Belt Study correctly recognises that its development will retain separation between towns. The site sits at the eastern/south-eastern limit of Hutton mount, the nearest settlement to the east of the site is Billericay which is approximately 3 miles away. The green gap etween the two settlements is considerable. The rest of the settlement at Hutton Mount extends significantly further east than Site 284 in this regard and should be considered very low risk in terms of purpose 2, especially in the context of the other sites that have been assigned the 'Separation Retained' designation.
Purpose 3: To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Site 284 is defined within the Green Belt Study as being 'Functional Countryside'. The assessment defines Functional Countryside as 'High degree or important public access'. Access is defined as 'access land, public right of ways and important routes'. The site itself, is in private ownership and does not provide access to the public. It is not used for agricultural purposes and therefore should not be considered 'functional countryside'. We therefore consider this assessment to be incorrect.
Purpose 4: To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns Brentwood Borough Council have recognised that site 284 has no physical or visual relationship with the Historic Town. The site is located some distance from the Town Centre with no direct relationship. The site is directly associated with the contemporary developments of the surrounding roads, which have limited historic character.
Purpose 5: To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land Brentwood Borough Council have not provided an analysis for Purpose 5.
2.35. Overall, Brentwood Borough Council have assessed the site as having a moderate overall contribution to the Green Belt, despite the favourable assessment of the site.
2.36. We have outlined above that where the site was assessed to have important role in the Green belt, that certain elements of the assessment are incorrect and are not a true reflection of the site's characteristics.
2.37. The development of this Green Belt site, which has limited environmental value and offers a minimal contribution to the Green Belt when assessed against its five intended purposes, would help to support housing delivery in a sustainable location in the Brentwood Borough, whilst protecting other Green Belt sites of much higher environmental value.
2.38. The weaknesses and inconsistencies recognised in the individual site assessments made, again demonstrate a flaw in the evidence base for the Local Plan and could again result in the unjustified omission of Green Belt sites from consideration for allocation as part of the new Local Plan.
2.39. The above analysis of Hanging Hill Lane, Hutton demonstrates that there remains small scale opportunities for sustainable development within the Green Belt and that the Local Plan should give consideration to the allocation of such sites alongside larger scale areas of release.
Strategic Environmental Assessment/Sustainability Appraisal (SEA/SA)
2.40. The PSLP is supported by a range of technical work, including the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) January 2019. The SA presents a number of sustainability issues/objectives which have been established through SA scoping. Together, these sustainability topics and objectives provide a methodological framework for the appraisal of potential allocation sites - including site 284.
2.41. The SA indicates that the allocation of Site 284 would have a positive effect in relation to one of the SA objectives. The SA analysis states that Site 284 is in good proximity to a secondary school (less than 1.5km), but in 'red' proximity from a GP surgery and a primary school. Willowbrook Primary School is located within 1.3 miles of the site, whilst Hogarth Primary School is also 1.5 miles from the site, both considered to be within walking distance from site. The nearest GP Surgery, Mount Avenue Surgery is located less than 1.5 miles away. Mount Avenue is defined in the Regulation 18 document to be 1 of 3 surgeries which has an average of 0.58 GPs per 1,000 patients, which is the national average. Furthermore, Mount Avenue Surgery has a large catchment area, therefore it is considered that it would provide service to those living at the site. Brentwood Community Hospital is also located less than 3 miles away.
2.42. The SA, through its analysis also states that the site at Hanging Hill Lane is an area that 'performs poorly' in respect of its proximity to an Ancient Woodland, SSSI, Local Wildlife Site, Listed Buildings and Agricultural Land. This scoring metric is considered to be highly assumptive and does not consider the potential opportunities for biological enhancement or mitigative measures of impact through landscape led schemes. The proximity of the site near these designations as referenced above, does not necessarily mean that there will be any direct impact to them from the development of the site.
2.43. In relation to Green Belt, the assessment is binary in its approach - if a potential site falls within the defined Green Belt, it will be given an 'Amber score'. The methodology notes that Green Belt is not a specific a landscape designation, as such the effects on the setting have not been appraised. Without appraising the effects on the setting, assigning a blanket 'amber' score to Green Belt sites, seem arbitrary.
2.44. As discussed above, a Green Belt Review of the Borough, and the contribution that each individual site makes to the Green Belt has been undertaken. This recognition that each individual site has differing values should have an influence on the scoring for the Green Belt element within the SA, rather than the binary approach taken.
2.45. In general, we consider that the SA Report is simplistic in its approach to individual site assessment. The SA has used a predominantly spatial or 'GIS' (use of Geographical Information Systems) approach to the assessment of each criteria, using the distance between the site and various factors to judge the extent to which it either achieves or opposes certain objectives. It has had no consideration for the positive contribution that the development of sites can make to the natural environment and local facilities.
2.46. The assumption made within the Sustainability Appraisal that sites will only negatively impact the Green Belt and other landscape and natural environment designations leading to the unjustified omission of sites from allocation, has resulted in the Local Plan being unsound.
3. Site Deliverability
3.1. Site 284 represents a deliverable, sustainable and achievable site for residential development. The below section provides overview of its deliverability and some of the technical reports that have been undertaken which help to demonstrate this.
Access & Connectivity
3.2. The site is considered to have a good access and connectivity to the surrounding area. The vehicular and pedestrian access to the site is proposed to be taken directly from Hanging Hill Lane, as existing.
3.3. The site is approximately 1.5 miles from Shenfield Station (less than a 30 minute walk). Shenfield Station provides frequent services to London Liverpool Street, Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich and settlements between. These destinations also provide connections to wider national transport network.
3.4. A public bus stop is located less than 13m from the site. This bus stop provides frequent services to Brentwood High Street, Basildon Town Centre, Billericay and Shenfield Rail Station, amongst other neighbouring settlements and the wider area.
3.5. The site is well-connected to the surrounding road network, and is approximately 2.5 miles from the A12. The A12 provides efficient access to settlements across Essex and East Anglia such as Chelmsford, Colchester and Ipswich, as well as direct connection to the M25.
3.6. Given the high access and connectivity levels of the site, it is evident that land at Hanging Hill Lane is within a sustainable location and should therefore be considered as one of a number of small sites around Hutton that would be suitable for accommodating growth that would be suitable for accommodating growth that would support the recognised housing needs of Brentwood.
Ecology
3.7. A full ecological appraisal of the site would be undertaken prior to any development. It is anticipated however that the development could easily mitigate potential impacts through retention of existing landscape features and replacement planting where appropriate, whilst also presenting an opportunity for enhancement of the ecological value of the site above the existing.
3.8. Any impacts could be easily mitigated and enhanced through a landscaping scheme to support any future development on the site.
Drainage
3.9. The site is adjacent to existing built development and it is anticipated that connections could therefore be made to the existing sewerage networks.
3.10. A sustainable urban strategy would form part of any design for the site to ensure the surface water run-off rates are maintained at the existing greenfield rates.
Contamination
3.11. The perceived history of the use of the site indicated that the site is unlikely to be contaminated.
Highways
3.12. There is an existing access to the site from Hanging Hill Lane which would be maintained and used to access any new development on the site. We understand that this access has good visibility splays and that it is therefore safe for continued use.
3.13. Any development on the site would be supported by a transport statement which consider the suitability of the local highway network to accommodate increased vehicular movements to and from the site.
3.14. It is however considered that sustainably located sites such as sites at Hanging Hill Lane will help provide new homes in locations where there is a minimal reliance on the use of the private car. There are direct footpath links to local convenience shops and schools in Hutton Mount, as well as further into the centre of Hutton. Other local services and facilities, including Shenfield station are also easily accessible by bike.
3.15. There have been no reasons recognised why existing highways and access arrangements should present a risk to the suitability and deliverability of the site.
Heritage
3.16. Grade II Listed Hare Hall is immediately to the south of the site. A Heritage Statement has been prepared by Architectural Management to assess the significance of this asset in respect of the potential residential development of the site, and accompanies this representation.
3.17. The assessment recognises that Hare Hall has been altered significantly over time and that the current building does not carry the level of significance which the original Hare Hall may have done.
3.18. In considering the setting of the listed building, the report also recognises that historically the Hall enjoyed an open outlook to the east and south and that the existing buildings on the site (subject of this rep), and its established vegetation means that the north of the site of has always been more enclosed with a limited outlook.
3.19. The report includes some specific recommendations towards site layout and design that will ensure that the development of this site will have no detrimental impact on the setting of Hare Hall.
4. Summary
4.1. Whilst the current proposed allocations and strategic polices of the PSLP appropriately address the minimum requirement of housing recognised for the Plan period, we query the length of the Plan period, and a lack of flexibility in the housing provision. As such we consider the Plan to be unsound due to its inability to comply with national policy, the unjustified omission of a housing supply which exceeds minimum requirements, and failure to positively prepare for potential changes to markets and housing requirements beyond these forecasts.
4.2. There is clearly a case for Site 284 to be further considered as a sustainable opportunity in respect of Brentwood Borough Council needing to further increase their housing delivery over the plan period. The development of the site would not impact the function of the Green belt in this location as it is immediately adjacent to Hutton, a 'main town' with the facilities and services that could support sustainable growth in Brentwood Borough. Development here would also accord with the Brentwood Borough Council Spatial Strategy which directs growth towards the A12 transport
corridor.
4.3. The accompanying studies evidence the deliverability, achievability and suitability of the site. It is anticipated that any impact on historical sites and settings, landscapes, ecology and ecological designations could be mitigated through appropriate measures. We therefore consider that the site should be allocated by Brentwood Borough Council as a site for residential development. There is an opportunity to identify sustainable sites that are suitable for delivering housing over short term timescales, and to ensure that the Plan is flexible and robust, and well prepared to meeting housing needs over the entirety of the Plan period.
4.4. Development of the site is supported by technical evidence that confirms its suitability, including in relation to the lack of harm the development would have to the purposes of the Green Belt. The reasons given for the rejection of the Site are therefore based on a number of assumptions and simplistic conclusions.
4.5. The exclusion of Site 284 is unjustified, and overlooks an opportunity to correct soundness deficiencies in respect of the Local plan, including in relation to the overall quantum of housing proposed and the lack of support for any growth at Hutton. The allocation of Site 284 for development will assist in resolving these deficiencies in respect of the Local Plan, enabling it to be found sound.