In order to comply with the requirements of the NPPF and to fully satisfy the criteria for sustainable development additional wording should be included as follows:

g. takes full account of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in developments
"ensuring delivery of no net loss and aiming to deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity wherever possible"

The policy does not fully satisfy the criteria for sustainable development.

has no unacceptable effect on health, the environment or amenity due to the release of pollutants (such as light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit) to land, water or air and/or from any effects from established uses which should not prejudiced by new development proposals;

Anglian Water is generally supportive of Policy SP01 as drafted although we would ask that established uses are also included in the policy wording.

We note that reference is made to ensuring that development proposals do not have an unacceptable impact on amenity including the potential for odour which is supported.

However the focus of the policy as drafted is on any identified effects from proposals. We would ask that consideration be given to occupied land and buildings which are proposed within close proximity to established uses e.g. Waste Water Treatment Works (water recycling centres).

It is important that planning applications are only granted where it can be demonstrated that they have a satisfactory amenity and that the continuous use of existing site in Anglian Water
's site for the benefit of our customers is not prejudiced.

Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development.

Unsound because :-
-Brentwood Borough Council has failed to provide a development strategy for the villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been prepared appropriately because it lacks any provision for meeting the village's needs, which have not been objectively assessed. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of an assessment of the housing needs within the village.
- Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities and has failed to account for the impact of developments in close proximity to the village. This contradicts key requirements of the LDP, as a nearby development of around 30 houses is under way on Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- Additional planned housing developments on Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs, near to Blackmore, have not been considered by the planners. These properties will rely on the village of Blackmore and further exacerbate the stresses on already overloaded infrastructure and services.
- Blackmore is a small village with modest services and infrastructure. Currently, Blackmore has minimal public transport providing access to the local towns of Brentwood and Chelmsford, a heavily oversubscribed primary school, a severely overstretched GP / Health services, narrow and heavily used roads, and desperately insufficient parking around the local shop. Additional housing on the scale proposed in the LDP will have a dramatically detrimental effect on these services and, subsequently, the quality of life of Blackmore's residents. The LDP fails to demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be sustained by the existing infrastructure and is, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement to achieve sustainable development.
- Far more suitable and sustainable locations are available within Brentwood Borough Council, that would provide much better access to urban development and services. Blackmore does not present the opportunity to achieve sustainable development.
- The proposed development is on Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Amendments to boundaries around the village of Blackmore have not be fully evidenced and justified as required by national policy. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, in particular that there are no other brownfield sites available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the sites off Red Rose Lane. The LDP is therefore unsound because it does not take into account reasonable alternatives and the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and is therefore contrary to national planning policy. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states "When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land."
- Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of dwellings proposed in the village. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements that would result from the proposed development. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable.
- The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and a neighbouring field was rejected from the LDP proposals because of the risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development may not be deliverable.
- Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, various species of bat, and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Unsound because :-
-Brentwood Borough Council has failed to provide a development strategy for the villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been prepared appropriately because it lacks any provision for meeting the village's needs, which have not been objectively assessed. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of an assessment of the housing needs within the village.
- Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities and has failed to account for the impact of developments in close proximity to the village. This contradicts key requirements of the LDP, as a nearby development of around 30 houses is under way on Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- Additional planned housing developments on Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs, near to Blackmore, have not been considered by the planners. These properties will rely on the village of Blackmore and further exacerbate the stresses on already overloaded infrastructure and services.
- Blackmore is a small village with modest services and infrastructure. Currently, Blackmore has minimal public transport providing access to the local towns of Brentwood and Chelmsford, a heavily oversubscribed primary school, a severely overstretched GP / Health services, narrow and heavily used roads, and desperately insufficient parking around the local shop. Additional housing on the scale proposed in the LDP will have a dramatically detrimental effect on these services and, subsequently, the quality of life of Blackmore's residents. The LDP fails to demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be sustained by the existing infrastructure and is, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement to achieve sustainable development.
- Far more suitable and sustainable locations are available within Brentwood Borough Council, that would provide much better access to urban development and services. Blackmore does not present the opportunity to achieve sustainable development.
- The proposed development is on Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Amendments to boundaries around the village of Blackmore have not be fully evidenced and justified as required by national policy. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, in particular that there are no other brownfield sites available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the sites off Red Rose Lane. The LDP is therefore unsound because it does not take into account reasonable alternatives and the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and is therefore contrary to national planning policy. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states "When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land."
- Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of dwellings proposed in the village. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements that would result from the proposed development. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable.
- The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and a neighbouring field was rejected from the LDP proposals because of the risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development may not be deliverable.
- Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, various species of bat, and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Unsound because :-
-Brentwood Borough Council has failed to provide a development strategy for the villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been prepared appropriately because it lacks any provision for meeting the village's needs, which have not been objectively assessed. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of an assessment of the housing needs within the village.
- Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities and has failed to account for the impact of developments in close proximity to the village. This contradicts key requirements of the LDP, as a nearby development of around 30 houses is under way on Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- Additional planned housing developments on Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs, near to Blackmore, have not been considered by the planners. These properties will rely on the village of Blackmore and further exacerbate the stresses on already overloaded infrastructure and services.
- Blackmore is a small village with modest services and infrastructure. Currently, Blackmore has minimal public transport providing access to the local towns of Brentwood and Chelmsford, a heavily oversubscribed primary school, a severely overstretched GP / Health services, narrow and heavily used roads, and desperately insufficient parking around the local shop. Additional housing on the scale proposed in the LDP will have a dramatically detrimental effect on these services and, subsequently, the quality of life of Blackmore's residents. The LDP fails to demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be sustained by the existing infrastructure and is, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement to achieve sustainable development.
- Far more suitable and sustainable locations are available within Brentwood Borough Council, that would provide much better access to urban development and services. Blackmore does not present the opportunity to achieve sustainable development.
- The proposed development is on Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Amendments to boundaries around the village of Blackmore have not be fully evidenced and justified as required by national policy. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, in particular that there are no other brownfield sites available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the sites off Red Rose Lane. The LDP is therefore unsound because it does not take into account reasonable alternatives and the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and is therefore contrary to national planning policy. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states "When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land."
- Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of dwellings proposed in the village. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements that would result from the proposed development. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable.
- The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and a neighbouring field was rejected from the LDP proposals because of the risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development may not be deliverable.
- Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, various species of bat, and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development.

Unsound because :
-Brentwood Borough Council has failed to provide a development strategy for the villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been prepared appropriately because it lacks any provision for meeting the village's needs, which have not been objectively assessed. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of an assessment of the housing needs within the village.
- Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities and has failed to account for the impact of developments in close proximity to the village. This contradicts key requirements of the LDP, as a nearby development of around 30 houses is under way on Fingrith Hall Lane, having been approved by Epping Forest District Council. The residents of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account.
- Additional planned housing developments on Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs, near to Blackmore, have not been considered by the planners. These properties will rely on the village of Blackmore and further exacerbate the stresses on already overloaded infrastructure and services.
- Blackmore is a small village with modest services and infrastructure. Currently, Blackmore has minimal public transport providing access to the local towns of Brentwood and Chelmsford, a heavily oversubscribed primary school, a severely overstretched GP / Health services, narrow and heavily used roads, and desperately insufficient parking around the local shop. Additional housing on the scale proposed in the LDP will have a dramatically detrimental effect on these services and, subsequently, the quality of life of Blackmore's residents. The LDP fails to demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be sustained by the existing infrastructure and is, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement to achieve sustainable development.
- Far more suitable and sustainable locations are available within Brentwood Borough Council, that would provide much better access to urban development and services. Blackmore does not present the opportunity to achieve sustainable development.
- The proposed development is on Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Amendments to boundaries around the village of Blackmore have not be fully evidenced and justified as required by national policy. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, in particular that there are no other brownfield sites available which should take priority over Green Belt land development such as the sites off Red Rose Lane. The LDP is therefore unsound because it does not take into account reasonable alternatives and the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and is therefore contrary to national planning policy. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states "When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land."
- Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of dwellings proposed in the village. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements that would result from the proposed development. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable.
- The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and a neighbouring field was rejected from the LDP proposals because of the risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development may not be deliverable.
- Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, various species of bat, and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy, included to ensure that the LDP is sound - as it stands the LDP is not justified because it is not based on proportionate evidence.
- Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development. As it stands the LDP is not justified in terms of overturning the Green Belt status of these sites. The LDP is unsound at present because the proposed development does not take account of reasonable alternatives.
- Highway/traffic assessments, flood risk/drainage assessment and detailed ecological surveys should be undertaken in order to demonstrate the sites R25 and R26 are deliverable.

Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development.

Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated a clear development strategy for the villages in the north of Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been positively prepared because there is no strategy which seeks to meet the villages objectively assessed needs.
- The LDP is required to be informed by agreements with other authorities. Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with the neighbouring authorities and considered the impact of developments in the neighbouring vicinity such as Epping Forest District Council.
- There are additional planned housing developments in Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs Lane near Blackmore which have not been taken into account, and these will again rely on Blackmore infrastructure and result in increased use of services.
- There are other more suitable and sustainable locations within Brentwood Borough Council with much better access to urban development, and locations such as Blackmore do not promote sustainable development. Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure - minimal bus services to Brentwood and Chelmsford, a primary school which is already full, a doctors surgery nearby which is severely overstretched with long waits for non-emergency GP appointments, narrow roads which are already over-full and parking congestion near the local shop. Further housing development would have a detrimental effect on all of these services. The LDP does not demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be accommodated by existing infrastructure, and the plan is therefore not consistent with achieving sustainable development.
- The proposed development sites are pristine Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that no suitable brownfield alternative sites are available.
- Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of new houses proposed in the village. The proposed developments would result in an increase in houses in Blackmore of over 25%. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence.
- The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements which would result from the proposed development. Indeed the lane is signed 'unsuitable for heavy vehicles'. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable.
- The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and an adjacent field was rejected from the LDP proposals because of the high risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development will not be deliverable as planned.
- Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, yellowhammers and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy.

Brentwood Borough Council are required to demonstrate that no other brownfield sites are available which should take priority over Green Belt development.

Unsound because: 1. Brentwood Borough Council has failed to provide a development strategy for the villages, including Blackmore, in the north of the Brentwood Borough. The LDP has not been prepared appropriately because it lacks any provision for meeting the village's needs, which have not been objectively assessed. This is clearly demonstrated by the lack of an assessment of the housing needs within the village. 2. Brentwood Borough Council has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities and has failed to account for the impact of developments in close proximity to the village. This contradicts key requirements of the LDP, as a nearby development of around 30 houses is under way on Fingriths of these homes will undoubtedly use Blackmore infrastructure and the impact of these properties has not been taken into account. 3. Additional planned housing developments on Red Rose Farm and on Spriggs, near to Blackmore, have not been considered by the planners. These properties will rely on the village of Blackmore and further exacerbate the stresses on already overloaded infrastructure and services. 4. Blackmore is a small village with modest services and infrastructure. Currently, Blackmore has minimal public transport providing access to the local towns of Brentwood and Chelmsford, a heavily oversubscribed primary school, a severely overstretched GP / Health service, narrow and heavily used roads, and desperately insufficient parking around the local shop. Additional housing on the scale proposed in the LDP will have a dramatically detrimental effect on these services and, subsequently, the quality of life of Blackmore's residents. The LDP fails to demonstrate that the level of proposed development in Blackmore can be sustained by the existing infrastructure and is, therefore, inconsistent with the requirement to achieve sustainable development. 5. Far more suitable and sustainable locations are available within Brentwood Borough Council, that would provide much better access to urban development and services. Blackmore does not present the opportunity to achieve sustainable development. 6. The proposed development is on Green Belt land - the Government and Brentwood Borough Council have given numerous assurances that high quality green field Green Belt land will not be sacrificed to housing unless no suitable brownfield alternatives are available. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. Amendments to boundaries around the village of Blackmore have not be fully evidenced and justified as required by national policy. Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development, in particular that there are no other brownfield sites off Red Rose Lane. The LDP is therefore unsound because it does not take into account reasonable alternatives and the need to promote sustainable patterns of development and is therefore contrary to national planning policy. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF states @When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. Strategic policymaking authorities should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. Where it has been concluded that it is necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport. They should also set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land." 7. Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other allocated sites within the LDP. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence. 8. There has been no 'Housing needs Survey' undertaken to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP, and there is no justification of the numbers of dwellings proposed in the village. The LDP is therefore not based on proportionate evidence. 9. The access off Red Rose Lane, Blackmore is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements that would result from the proposed development. The lane is very narrow and two cars cannot pass each other without pulling to the side. The lane has ditches either side and does not have pavements or other provision for pedestrians. The lane is regularly used by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the additional traffic would cause a major hazard. The LDP has not demonstrated that the proposed development off Red Rose Lane is sustainable. 10. The proposed sites are liable to flood, and the proposed development of these sites will also increase the flood risk in the village which has been subject to severe flooding in the past. Red Rose Lane itself has flooded many times in the past, and a neighbouring field was rejected from the LDP proposal because of the risk of flooding. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable, and if ponds and extra drainage are required to alleviate the risk of flooding, then the development may not be deliverable. 11. Site R26 is home to a number of protected species including turtle doves, skylarks, various species of bat, and barn owls. The turtle dove is a Section 41 species which is of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. They are vulnerable to global extinction and identified in the Red List of Endangered Species. The loss of this site to housing would inevitably mean the loss of this important breeding site and thus further loss of appropriate habitat. Loss of this habitat and impact on protected species is also contrary to national policy

There is no clear strategy for Blackmore and other villages in the north of the borough. Brentwood Borough Council does not appear to have taken into consideration the proposals of neighbouring authorities e.g. Epping Forest District Council is proposing to construct 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane - the residents of these houses will almost certainly use Blackmore as a local shopping place adding both to the traffic along Fingrith Hall Lane and the parking congestion in the centre of Blackmore village. Both policies R25 and R26 are based upon development off Red Rose Lane which according to the plan will be the main vehicular access. In total the plan as it currently stands is to add 70 homes across the two allocations - Red Rose Lane is a narrow lane most of which is not wide enough to allow two cars to pass one another, but given Blackmore's relatively poor public transport connections we can expect an average of at least two additional cars per household and assuming a minimum of two journeys each per day (one in and one out) that is a minimum of 280 extra cars per day along this narrow lane which has no pavements. In addition, Red Rose Lane has signs at each end stating that it is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles (see photos embedded below) and yet this will be the access route for all the construction traffic for the two sites. Red Rose Lane has drainage ditches running down either side of it which are important for local drainage and widening the road is not a viable option without further increasing the flood risk for the rest of the village. Please also see further comments below concerning the flood risk within the village. Both of these sites are green belt land. Section 2 in paragraph 2.8 of the plan classes Blackmore as Settlement Category 3 which to quote the table under paragraph 2.10 are "Villages in a sparse rural setting that provide day to day needs for local residents. Brownfield redevelopment opportunities and limited urban extensions will be encouraged to meet local needs where appropriate. Development should be appropriate to the rural setting of the area." Adding 70 homes on green belt land in a village with a population of 829 is neither appropriate to the rural setting nor is it brownfield redevelopment. This does not in any way seem to comply with Policy SP01: Sustainable Development which states in paragraph 4.9 "For a scheme to be acceptable, development will be required to make satisfactory arrangements for vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access into the site and for parking and servicing within the site. Any traffic generated by the development should be capable of being satisfactorily accommodated by the transport network and not give rise to unacceptable highway conditions, safety and amenity concerns." The LDP proposes that 1% of the net homes should be on green belt land around "large villages", a total of 123 homes, and yet 70 of these are proposed for this one village - this appears to contradict paragraph 8.101. There is also no justification as to why Blackmore, amongst a number of other settlements should be "excluded from the Green Belt" (paragraph 8.90). In addition the village primary school is already fully subscribed and the local doctor's surgery (which is located in Doddinghurst) is very busy and it can take up to two weeks to obtain an appointment. There is nothing within the development plan to mitigate for this. There is very limited parking in the centre of the village both outside the village shop and the two public houses and tea shops, with cars regularly parked along both sides of Fingrith Hall Lane and around Horse Fayre Green and it can be expected that this only will only spread further into the surrounding residential areas and along to the village green with the additional cars that the proposed developments will bring. There does not appear to have been any housing needs survey to demonstrate why Blackmore requires such extensive development. The proposed sites are liable to flooding and building on these and concreting them over will increase the flood risk to the rest of the village. Blackmore lies in a shallow bowl of land at the top of a gentle valley with the River Wid emerging from the south side of The Moat. So, surface water drains from the west, north and east into the village and then around The Moat to become the River Wid. This is ok in normal conditions but when rainfall is extreme the streams and drainage pipes are overwhelmed with flooding of roads which is common and sometimes with danger to homes. There was flooding of roads in the village in June 2016 after heavy rain and I am aware that the home of one of our near neighbours was flooded by waters rising from the stream that runs underneath their house in Church Street as it could not cope with the volume of rainfall. Having more hard impermeable surfaces such as roofs, drives and roads which increase the speed of run-off of surface water will further increase the risk of overwhelming the drainage systems. This seems to totally contradict policy NE06. There is therefore no indication within the LDP as to how the proposed Policy R25 and R26 developments around Blackmore will be "repaid through significant benefits to the new and existing communities" (paragraph 8.114) - in fact due to the size of the proposals it would seem to be to the detriment of the existing community through the addition traffic, congestion and flood risk that would result from these policies.

Suggested additional wording to refer to potential amenity impacts from existing uses as well as new development proposals. We welcome the opportunity to enter into a Statement of Common Ground or similar in relation to the outstanding points set out above prior to the examination.

Further to my previous e-mail - I am pleased to confirm we are largely happy with the content of the Brentwood Pre-submission Local Plan as currently drafted.

We are supportive of the Local Plan policies relating to infrastructure delivery (SP06) Sustainable Design and construction and future proofing (BE01 and BE02) Drainage and flood risk (NE06 and BE08) and policies relation to Dunton Hills strategic allocation (RO1 (I) and RO1 (III)).

We have sought wording changes for two policies as follows:

Policy SP01 - suggested additional wording to refer to potential amenity impacts from existing uses as well as new development proposals. In effect we are seeking to avoid a situation where we are unable to operate our Water Recycling Centre (wastewater treatment works) on a continuous basis due to concerns raised about amenity impacts (principally odour) from development proposals in close proximity to these sites.

Policy BE18 - clarification of wording to make it clear that wastewater treatment capacity is made available by the sewage companies and not developers who have a role in funding improvements to the network itself.

We welcome the opportunity to enter into a Statement of Common Ground or similar in relation to the outstanding points set out above prior to the examination.

If you would like to discuss these comments further please do not hesitate to get in touch.

To address the above concern it is considered that Part D(e) of Policy SP01 could be revised to read as follows:
"e. has no unacceptable effect on health, the environment or amenity due to the release of pollutants (such as light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit) to land, water or air, and where the amenity of future occupiers would not be adversely impacted by existing sources of such pollutants unless suitable mitigation measures are proposed and secured;"
The additional wording would ensure that development is not located where the amenity of future residents would be affected by existing sources of polluntants unless suitable mitigation is provided. This would ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with the NPPF and therefore sound.

Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for consulting Thames Water on the above document. Thames Water is the statutory sewerage undertaker for part of the Borough and is hence a "specific consultation body" in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Local Development) Regulations 2012.
Planning Policies
Thames Water support the proposed policies within the Pre-submission Local Plan. Notwithstanding this it is suggested that minor modifications are made to the text within Policies SP01 and SP04 in order to ensure that the policies are effective in relation to ensuring development is delivered alongside any necessary sewerage infrastructure reinforcement works required to support it. The proposed modifications are set out in the attached response forms. In relation to Policy NE02 the requirement for engagement with sewerage providers is welcomed. To assist with promoting early engagement it would be beneficial if a link to Thames Waters pre-application service could be provided on the Councils website. Details regarding Thames Waters pre-application service can be found at: www.thameswater.co.uk/preplanning

Site Specific Comments
We have undertaken a high level review of the proposed site allocations within the Thames Water catchment and have appended comments in relation to wastewater infrastructure issues for these sites in table below.
R04 & R05 - Ford Headquarters and Council Depot, Warley: The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and
how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. R06 - Land off Nags Head Lane, Brentwood The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand
anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application.
R07 - Sow & Grow Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ
R08 - Land adjacent to Camel, Mascalls Lane, Warley
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ. We do not envisage network infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site on a basis that it won't be any surface water connection into a public foul sewer system. Connection of surface water into a public foul sewer system reduces sewer capacity and has the potential to cause flooding to existing customers. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water.
R09 - Land west of Warley Hill, Pastoral Way, Warley
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R10 - Brentwood railway station car park St James Road, Brentwood
The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be submitted with the planning application. A significant assets run beneath the site. We would seek protection of these assets and may require several wayleaves /easements. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R11 - Westbury Road Car Park, Westbury Road, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a
brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R12 - Land at Hunter House, Western Road, Brentwood (Reviewed Jan18)
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing. Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ Surface water to be addressed according to the Drainage hierarchy. This being a brownfield site we expect a significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R13 Chatham Way/Crown Street Car Park, Brentwood (Reviewed Jan18)
On the information available to date we do not envisage infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater network or wastewater treatment infrastructure capability in relation to this site/s. It is recommended that the Developer and the Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of the developments phasing.Please contact Thames Water Development Planning, either by email Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel: 02035779998 or in writing Thames Water Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9SQ Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R14 - WILLIAM HUNTER WAY, CAR
PARK SITE, BRENTWOOD
The wastewater network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Local upgrades to the existing drainage infrastructure may be required to ensure sufficient capacity is brought forward ahead
of the development. Where there is a potential wastewater network capacity constraint, the developer should liaise with Thames Water to determine whether a detailed drainage strategy informing what infrastructure is required, where, when and how it will be delivered is required. The detailed drainage strategy should be
submitted with the planning application. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water. As this is a brown field site, we expect significant reduction in surface water runoff.
R15 - Wates Way Industrial Estate,
Ongar Road, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding water supply network or water
treatment infrastructure capacity in relation
to this site/s. It is recommended that the
Developer and the Local Planning Authority
liaise with Thames Water at the earliest
opportunity to advise of the developments
phasing. Please contact Thames Water
Development Planning, either by email
Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel:
02035779998 or in writing Thames Water
Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham
Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3
9SQ
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in
addressing surface water. As this is a
brown field site, we expect significant
reduction in surface water runoff.
R16 & R17- Land off Doddinghurst Road, either side of A12, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater network or
wastewater treatment infrastructure
capability in relation to this site/s. It is
recommended that the Developer and the
Local Planning Authority liaise with Thames
Water at the earliest opportunity to advise of
the developments phasing. Please contact
Thames Water Development Planning,
either by email
Devcon.team@thameswater.co.uk tel:
02035779998 or in writing Thames Water
Utilities Ltd, Maple Lodge STW, Denham
Way, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3
9SQ
R19- Land At Priests Lane, Brentwood
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater infrastructure
capability in relation to this site.
Please note that the above comments
relate to the sewerage network within the
Thames Water supply area only. It is
recommended that Anglian Water are also
consulted for their comments in relation to
this development proposal. Drainage
hierarchy to be followed in addressing
surface water.
R23 - Brizes Corner Field, Blackmore
Road, Kelvedon Hatch
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater infrastructure
capability in relation to this site.
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in
addressing surface water. Please note that
the above comments relate to the sewerage
network within the Thames Water supply
area only. It is recommended that Anglian
Water are also consulted for their
comments in relation to this development
proposal.
R24 - Land off Stocks Lane, Kelvedon Hatch
On the information available to date we do
not envisage infrastructure concerns
regarding wastewater infrastructure
capability in relation to this site.
Drainage hierarchy to be followed in
addressing surface water. Please note that
the above comments relate to the sewerage
network within the Thames Water supply
area only. It is recommended that Anglian
Water are also consulted for their
comments in relation to this development
proposal.

POLICY SP04
In relation to wastewater infrastructure it will be essential that new development is aligned with any
necessary upgrades required to ensure that the development would not overload the existing
sewerage network. Thames Water therefore support the content of Policy NE2 parts D and E and
encourage developers proposing developments to engage with them at an early stage to discuss the
wastewater infrastructure requirements for development.
The proposed policy ensures that the Local Plan is consistent with Paragraphs 20 and 41 of the NPPF.
Alongside the proposed amended text for Policy SP04, the policy will help ensure the effective
delivery of any sewerage network reinforcement works necessary to support development.

POLICY SP04
In relation to wastewater infrastructure it will be essential that new development is aligned with any
necessary upgrades required to ensure that the development would not overload the existing
sewerage network.
Thames Water support the policy in principle. However, it should be noted that new sewerage
infrastructure is delivered by the sewerage undertaker and funded through the infrastructure charge
for new developments connecting to the sewerage network. It is not therefore possible for any
necessary upgrades to be secured through CIL or S106 contributions. In order to ensure that any
necessary sewerage infrastructure reinforcement works required to support a development are
delivered ahead of the occupation of development it may be necessary for planning conditions to be
used to ensure that a development or phase of development is not occupied until the required
upgrade has been delivered. To help ensure this Policy SP04 should make reference to the use of
planning conditions as a mechanism to ensure the delivery of infrastructure alongside S106
agreements and CIL.

To address the above concern Part B of Policy SP04 could be amended to incorporate the following
wording:
"c. off-site capacity improvement works (secured through appropriate planning conditions or
agreements)"
The proposed change would ensure that planning conditions can be used to secure infrastructure
improvements necessary to support development alongside S106 agreements and CIL thereby
ensuring that the policy is effective and the Local Plan is sound.

POLICY SP01:
Thames Water support the aim of Policy SP01 (D) in relation to ensuring development does not result
in unacceptable impacts on amenity. However, as worded the policy would only be effective in
ensuring that development itself has no unacceptable impact on amenity. Consideration is also
required to be given to whether the location of proposed development is appropriate taking into
account existing sources of noise, odour and vibration to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers
of development will not be adversely affected by such issues. Where development would be affected
by an existing source of noise, odour or vibration development should only be allowed where it is
demonstrated that suitable mitigation measures can be put in place and it has been demonstrated
how these will be delivered. This would be required in order to ensure that the policy is consistent
with Paragraph 182 of the NPPF 2019.
To address the above concern it is considered that Part D(e) of Policy SP01 could be revised to read as
follows:
"e. has no unacceptable effect on health, the environment or amenity due to the release of pollutants
(such as light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit) to land, water or air, and
where the amenity of future occupiers would not be adversely impacted by existing sources of such
pollutants unless suitable mitigation measures are proposed and secured;"
The additional wording would ensure that development is not located where the amenity of future
residents would be affected by existing sources of polluntants unless suitable mitigation is provided.
This would ensure that the policy is effective and consistent with the NPPF and therefore sound.

Section 09: (Site Allocation)
- Policy R25, 9.197 - 9.200
- Policy R26, 9.201 - 9.204



Section 04: (Managing Growth)
- Policy SP01 - D (a) and D (f)
- Para 4.9
- Para 4.2
- Policy SP02

Section 08: (Natural Environment)
- Policy NE06, 8.5 - 8.64
- Para 8.85 (iv)
- Para 8.90
- Para 8.101
- Policy NE13

The Local Plan is not compliant per the below:
* NPPF Sect 2 8.a.b.c - to meet local need, accessible services -does not comply
* NPPF Sect 3 28 - local community has been ignored rather than included
* NPPF Sect 5 77/78 - decisions should be 'responsive to local circumstances' and 'reflect local needs'. There is no proven need for these houses
* NPPF Sect 9 103 - Development should be focused on locations, limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of travel modes. Blackmore is approximately 7 miles form the nearest train station so private cars will have to used to commute via narrow country lanes
* NPPF Sect 14 -the area floods (my next door neighbors house flooded in June 2016). No focused flood risk assessment has been carried out
* NPPF Sect 15 174/175 - to protect and enhance biodiversity.
* NPPF 16 - Conserving the historic environment. R25 and R26 have two Grade 2 listed buildings on the boundary of the development. Red Rose Lane being the point of access for both developments was built as a local 'plague road' from the time of the Black Death
* Location needs to be re-assessed. There is no proven need that Blackmore need this number of houses being distant from transport links and there being hardly any local employment.
* Develop a strategic approach to the Villages north of Brentwood by consultation.
* Detailed flood risk analysis required.
* Assess smaller scale brownfield developments within the area to cater for local need if any is proven.
* Re-assess the development of sites around the transport hubs (Brentwood, Dunton, etc.) rather than rural villages not near mainline rail.

SCHOOL! This is a local village one form entry school, which is already oversubscribed. More houses equal more children.
TRAFFIC! Blackmore is already congested with cars and for parking, We do not want more traffic spoiling this beautiful village.
GP. Already overcrowded and will be put under more strain.
There is not a need for more houses here in such a small village

Section 09 - R25 and R26
What plans have been made for surrounding infrastructure?
Which other sites in Essex have been identified?
Asking residents door to door
Green Belt land is identified as green belt for a reason. There are other areas that can be built on which do not impact on small already strained village.

SCHOOL! This is a local village one form entry school, which is already oversubscribed. More houses equal more children.
TRAFFIC! Blackmore is already congested with cars and for parking, We do not want more traffic spoiling this beautiful village.
GP. Already overcrowded and will be put under more strain.
There is not a need for more houses here in such a small village

Section 09: (Site Allocation)
- Policy R25, 9.197 - 9.200
- Policy R26, 9.201 - 9.204
Section 04: (Managing Growth)
- Policy SP01 - D (a) and D (f)
- Para 4.9
- Para 4.2
- Policy SP02
Section 08: (Natural Environment)
- Policy NE06, 8.5 - 8.64
- Para 8.85 (iv)
- Para 8.90
- Para 8.101
- Policy NE13

Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan

Section 09: (Site Allocation)
- Policy R25, 9.197 - 9.200
- Policy R26, 9.201 - 9.204



Section 04: (Managing Growth)
- Policy SP01 - D (a) and D (f)
- Para 4.9
- Para 4.2
- Policy SP02

Section 08: (Natural Environment)
- Policy NE06, 8.5 - 8.64
- Para 8.85 (iv)
- Para 8.90
- Para 8.101
- Policy NE13


Unsound; Not compliant with Duty to Cooperate; all reasons unsound.
Written representation only.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan.

1. There are several other developments taking place in the North of the Borough in addition to those proposed for Blackmore. No consideration has been taken in respect of these additional developments which if taken into account could well fulfil the local housing requirements without building on Green Belt Land.
2. From the discussions at a recent meeting with council representatives they were not fully aware f these other developments for example in the region of 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane which will also further add to the unacceptable impact of the village
3. The planning officers have not had sufficient detailed dialogue with other local boroughs to ensure that proposals take into account all local development and options for example the development taking place in the Fyfield Road out of Ongar. I cannot accept that Brentwood Council acts independently without due consideration to all local developments that would impact on what is a huge impact which cannot be sustained by Blackmore Village.
4. The principle of residential development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong - Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure and I would point out the current challenges we face living here:
* One village shop/Post Office with very restricted parking
* A Doctors surgery whereby I genuinely hope I do not need to request urgent care. If you want any form of response you have to continuously dial repeatedly to get assistance - comments on the website page highlights this.
* The local village school has very limited places and resources which was put under further pressure due to a large unapproved travelling community site with some 20-30 caravans and families is also impacting on the village resources available.
5. Red Rose Lane itself is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic movements. This lane is regularly used currently by large agricultural vehicles which have to by-pass the village due to their size. They are large "Tracked" Tractors units towing large trailers which take up the full width of the lane and this closes the road to oncoming traffic. If they meet any vehicles coming the other way have to reverse to one of two temporary "Passing Places". Additionally large school buses use this lane again creating serious safety risks. The risk of a further 70-80 vehicles accessing the planned site and village early and late periods has simply not been fully considered and will not be feasible.

Red Rose Lane regularly floods with the water coming down Nine Ashes Road like a river and into the lane. The ditches and limited drainage near to the junction simply cannot cope and a large area is regularly left under water during the winter months. Flooding has increasingly become an issue in recent years and has now started to erode the lane at the front of our house. This will also further impact the flooding risk in the village which has been an increasing problem.

I would also add that the recent and what I would say "convenient" excessive cutting back of the bushes and trees on either side will further contribute to the flooding risk this during winter months due to the foliage now lying in the verge and ditches.

Due to the above access on/off of Red Rose Lane is simply not a viable prospect and the width of the road restricts this.

6. As a local resident I find the whole review and consultation process has been carried out in an open transparent or logical way which I would have expected if due legal process had been followed. At the initial consultations meeting so many questions were asked that the persons present could not answer and it was only when challenged by our community that further discussions took place to fully explain what was being proposed. At the last meeting we challenged the council planners in respect of other options both in and around the village which they had not taken into consideration.
7. Brentwood Council has simply not demonstrated that they have taken into account other Brownfield sites that are available which surely must take priority over the development of Green Belt Lane between Red Rose Lane and Blackmore Village.
8. No housing needs survey has been carried out by the council to justify why Blackmore has been included in the Local Development Plan and they have failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other (allocated) sites.
9. Blackmore has been "singled out" because there are more suitable locations for example further urban extension to Brentwood whereby there would be sufficient resources to sustain expansion - and the locations in Blackmore do not promote sustainable development.
The current proposed plan is simply not viable as all the options have not been investigated.

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

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

Criterion D(d) should be amended to read:
d. ensures the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or give rise to a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network

BE04
Criterion B(c) of this policy requires the application of the heat hierarchy to all development proposals. This is an unreasonable and unnecessary burden to apply to all developments that is not supported by national policy or the evidence base. Furthermore, it could limit the deliverability of proposals where existing CHP/CCHP facilities are not available and where the cost of developing an on-site facility is prohibitive. It is not reasonable to expect a developer to factor the cost of such an onerous requirement into the development economics for a site and to then have to demonstrate the viability issues surrounding it. It is suggested that such a feature is only justifiable on the largest of the strategic sites proposed in the district and is not relevant to the majority of the site allocations.
Amend criterion B(c) to clarify that such a requirement is only applicable to schemes of 500 residential units or more.
BE10
Criterion C of this policy requires the developer to make alternative arrangements for broadband provision where a provider has identified that superfast broadband is not practical. This shifts the burden of responsibility from the provider - who is paid to provide a service - to the developer. The developer is unlikely to be a broadband provider and as such this is an unreasonable requirement that is not supported by national policy. Furthermore, the viability work in the evidence base does not provide a sufficiently robust assessment of the likely costs of providing this and therefore the impact on the viability of the proposed allocation has not been adequately assessed. This is unsurprising as the likely work is unknown and this only serves to highlight the unreasonableness of the request.
For the reasons explained above, amend criterion C(a) to require a developer to ensure that the design of the development allows for the provision of broadband service via an alternative technology provider rather than require the developer to actually provide the facility.
BE16
The wording of criterion A does not reflect the wording of the NPPF at paragraph 109, which reads:
"Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe." It is therefore inconsistent with national policy.
For the reasons explained above, criterion A should be amended to read: Developments should not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the residual cumulative impacts on the road networks should not be severe.
BE18
Criterion B(a) requires development proposals to dictate the decision-making process. It is assumed that this is an error in drafting and that it will be for the Council to ensure that the requirements referred to are factored into the decision-making process. Such a requirement is best-placed in the supporting text with clarification that it will be the way in which the Council will handle decision-making.
Criterion B(f) requires improvements to be made to the water environment. Such a requirement is not justified by national policy as it is not for development proposals to resolve existing issues - development proposals can only mitigate the impact of the development proposed.
Criterion B(g) requires development proposals to eliminate misconnections between foul and surface water networks. This can only be achieved where the whole site is being redeveloped and it cannot remove misconnections that are outside of the developers control. The wording of this criterion is not clear about the remit of the development proposal.
The concerns raised must be addressed as criterion C seeks financial contributions where the measures required are not possible. As worded, some of these requirements are not relevant to the development proposal or deliverable by the developer and therefore it would be unreasonable to seek financial contributions to such works.
For the reasons explained above:
* Delete criterion B(a) and add to the supporting text with clarification that this is how the Council will approach decision-making.
* Remove the reference to improving the water environment in criterion B(f) as a requirement for all development proposals
* Amend criterion B(g) to make it clear that the requirement relates the connections within the development site where the development proposals relate.
BE20
This policy, as written, requires the provision of allotments/growing space as part of any residential development. Neither the policy nor the supporting text identifies the scale of development where this policy would be applicable. Such a requirement will not be feasible on some allocated sites where site constraints mean that the area of developable land is reduced and where the scale of development does not support the provision of land for such a use.
It is considered an unreasonable and unnecessary requirement for any scale of residential development and should be restricted to the larger allocation sites of 500 units or more.
It is considered that this blanket requirement will reduce the development yield of individual allocation sites thereby creating a situation where the allocations do not deliver the number of units identified and contributing to the failure of the plan to meet the identified housing requirement. This would conflict with national policy.
For the reasons explained above, amend the policy to identify that the requirement relates to schemes of 500 units or more.
BE22
The policy identifies the potential for proposals to provide financial contributions towards new or improved facilities in the borough. Although it is noted that the sentence includes the phrase 'where appropriate' it is considered that the policy should make clear that the contributions will go towards facilities that are directly related to the development proposal to mitigate the impacts rising. It would not, for example, be appropriate or consistent with national policy if the contributions were for the improvement of play facilities that the residents of a proposed residential scheme would be unlikely - through proximity - to utilise or have an impact upon.
For the reasons explained above, amend criterion A to make it clear that the financial contributions will relate to facilities that are directly related to the development proposals and the impacts arising.
HP06
Footnote 46 of the NPPF is clear that the optional technical space standards can be used where there is clear need for the standards to be applied. This is reinforced by the PPG. The supporting text for the policy refers to the need being identified in the Council's AMR. The AMR available on the Council's website does not appear to make reference to any such need being identified and there is no other document in the evidence base to demonstrate the need for the application of these standards has been identified and tested.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that an assessment has been undertaken regarding the implications of delivering these standards on the density of development. This is significant as larger properties have the potential to reduce the likely yield achievable and/or result in the loss of land required to meet other standards, such as on-site open space requirements. This gives rise to the potential for the plan to fail to meet the identified housing needs and would render it ineffective.
For the reasons explained above, the Council must either delete the requirement to comply with the technical standards or else provide the evidence necessary to support the policy and demonstrate the implications for development densities. This evidence should be clearly referenced in the supporting text of the policy.
NE03
The wording of this policy is such that it would prevent the loss of any tree or hedgerow within the development site. This is significant as many of the allocated sites include existing trees/hedgerows that are arguably of some value and will have some ecological value. The loss of such trees/hedgerows may be necessary to secure the satisfactory development of the site and deliver the level of development envisaged by the allocation.
It is sensible therefore that the policy reflects the potential for the impact of the loss of some trees/hedgerows to be outweighed by other benefits arising from the development proposal.
This would be consistent with national policy and ensure that the plan can deliver the level of development that has been identified as necessary. Failure to recognise this could render the plan ineffective.
For the reasons explained above, amend the policy to acknowledge that the adverse impacts arising from the loss of trees, woodlands and hedgerows will be balanced against the benefits arising from the development, especially where allocated for development. The wording of the policy can still identify a preference to retain such features within development proposals but must acknowledge the potential for some losses to be inevitable in order to deliver the site allocations or secure an otherwise satisfactory development.
NE12
Criterion A(d) requires the provision of community benefits in order to redevelop PDL in the Green Belt. This is not a requirement set out in paragraph 145 of the NPPF and therefore it is inconsistent with national policy.
Criterion A(e) requires the provision of travel links. This is a potentially onerous requirement for the scale of development that may be proposed and again is not a requirement set out in paragraph 145 of the NPPF. It is therefore inconsistent with national policy.
Delete Criteria A(d) and (e) in order to comply with the NPPF.
NE13
Criterion A of this policy requires the delivery of significant community benefits and the wording of the supporting text advises that this is to 'repay' the loss of Green Belt land. The Council has identified Green Belt land for development as it does not have
sufficient non-Green Belt land to meet the identified housing need. The release of these sites is therefore required to meet these needs and by doing so will self-evidently provide significant community benefits. The requirement for additional provision above and beyond this suggests that the developer has a choice of sites to develop, which is clearly not the case as other non-Green Belt sites would be identified if it were.
This requirement is therefore unreasonable, unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.
Criterion B advises that allocated sites 'will be' deallocated from the Green Belt. As the removal of land from the Green Belt can only come about through the preparation of a development plan this de-allocation must happen upon adoption of the plan and not presented as a future intention.
For the reasons explained above, delete criterion A and amend 'will be' in criterion B to 'are'.
SP01
The wording of criterion D(d) does not reflect the wording of the NPPF at paragraph 109, which reads:
Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
It is therefore inconsistent with national policy.
To reflect paragraph 109 of the NPPF, criterion D(d) should be amended to read:
d. ensures the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or give rise to a severe residual cumulative impact on the road network.
SP02
The housing requirement set out in the policy is based on an out-of-date method for calculating the LHN. The supporting text indicates a figure that relates to the 2016 HHP when the most recent advice is that the 2014 HHP should be used. This is significant as the Council has chosen to add a buffer to this figure to allow for the supply of housing to be maintained.
The 2014 HHP with the 2017 affordability ratios applied reveal that the base need is 452 rather than 350 as the Plan states. Although this is broadly similar to the 456 per annum figure allowed for in the policy, it does not allow for the buffer that the Council has considered necessary.
This raises potential consistency issues with national policy that may influence the ability of the plan to deliver the housing required to fulfil the identified need.
For the reasons explained above, the justification for the housing requirement figure will need to be reviewed and updated accordingly. The Council will need to ensure that it can robustly defend the figure that it has put forward. The current wording of the supporting text and the evidence base referred to does not currently provide a robust defense.
SP03
The policy presents an unnecessary burden on those developers bringing forward allocated sites where the infrastructure capacity on an area should have already been identified through the plan-making process, as required by the PPG. It is considered that HIA should be confined to strategic sites (500 units or more) to reflect the fact that, in line with the PPG, they are required where significant impacts are anticipated.
Other impacts referred to in the policy are a standard part of the development management process and do not warrant a further assessment to be included with the application. These are adequately summarised in criterion A of the policy.
Furthermore, the criterion C places the burden of delivery of health and social care facilities on the developer. The developer is unlikely to be a health and social care provider and therefore cannot reasonably be expected to deliver such facilities.
It is also important to acknowledge that the developer of an individual site cannot be expected to address existing deficiencies in an area. This is important as it may be that such facilities are entirely absent in any area where development is allocated despite the existence of an existing need. In such case, the wording of the policy means that a developer could be required to provide more than is necessary to mitigate the impacts arising from the development.
The issues identified above raise conflicts with national policy and could prejudice the deliverability of individual sites, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the Plan.
For the reasons explained above:
* Amend criterion C to raise the threshold to 500.
* Remove the requirement for the developer to deliver the necessary health and social care facilities
* Ensure that it is clear that the developer is only expected to contribute to improvements necessary to mitigate the impact of the development where such facilities are already in place.
SP04
Criterion A of the policy expects developers to guarantee the sustained provision of infrastructure. It is important to recognise that developers are rarely the infrastructure provider and therefore have no control over the sustained provision of the infrastructure that they contribute to.
The responsibility for sustained provision rests with the infrastructure provider and this should not be transferred to the developer. To do so conflicts with national policy.
Criterion F requires a Financial Viability Assessment where there is conflict with planning policy requirements. It does not specify which policy conflicts would trigger this need and so as currently written would apply to any such conflict. This presents an unreasonable and unnecessary burden for a developer where the conflict arises because it of feasibility issues rather than viability issues. There may also be sound material considerations for departing from a particular policy and those reasons may have nothing to do with viability. The blanket requirement for such an assessment is contrary to the PPG and national policy.
For the reasons explained above, remove the last sentence of criterion A and amend criterion F to confirm what policy conflicts trigger the need for a viability assessment.
SP06
The policy does not define what it considers to be a 'large complex allocation site' and as such could impose a blanket requirement for the submission of a masterplan and a design code as part of the submission for all allocated sites. This is considered to be an unreasonable and unnecessary burden that is not supported by the NPPF or the PPG and is not justified by the individual site allocations.
It also has the potential to slow down the delivery of sites, which for a borough with a poor track record of delivery is not sensible.
For the reasons explained above, clarify in the policy which of the allocated sites fall within the definition of a 'large complex allocation site'.
The issues raised are complex and would benefit from discussion at the Examination.

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.

Policy SP01 Sustainable Development (page 46 - 47)
Criterion B and C of Policy SP01 unnecessarily repeats the NPPF and could be removed.
Criterion D(i) should be amended to reflect multiple heritage assets and conservation areas as follows:
"i. preserves, and where appropriate, enhances heritage assets and conservation areas;"

Policy SP01, Sustainable Development (page 46 - 47)
Criterion B and C of Policy SP01 unnecessarily repeats the NPPF and could be removed.
Criterion D(i) should be amended to reflect multiple heritage assets and conservation areas.

Local Housing Need (page 48 - 50)
Since the Regulation 19 Local Plan was published, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has confirmed its position on the standard method for calculating housing need (19 February 2019) which is of relevant to this Plan. In response, the Council will need to update explanatory text in Chapter 4 of the Local Plan to reflect the use of 2014 rather than 2016 household projections.
The Planning Practice Guidance makes clear that the standard method formula is used to identify the minimum number of new homes to be planned for and does not in itself establish a housing requirement figure. The Council's housing requirement figure is set out in the Plan at 456 dpa and this figure is in excess, albeit only slightly, of the standard method figure (452 dpa) using the 2014 projections and is sufficient. The requirements of national policy are met and the plan is sound.
The Council states that in including its 'annual housing supply buffer' on top of the 350 dpa (derived from use the standard method calculation using the 2016 projections) it serves to safeguard against any potential uplift to the standard method, this now having materialised. This was a sensible contingency. Considering this buffer has now effectively absorbed within the updated standard method figure the Council is requested to confirm if its purpose has now been served and it intends to submit the plan to examination with the housing requirement as currently stated.
CEG supports the Council's reliance on a stepped trajectory which, in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 34, Ref. ID: 3-034-20180913), is appropriate in circumstances where: there is to be a significant change in the level of housing requirement between the adopted and emerging Local Plans, as is the case here; and, recognising that many sites will not be available for development until the adoption of the plan, reflecting the high proportion of designated Green Belt in the Borough.
CEG is committed to bringing forward the provision of new homes on Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) as early as possible in the Plan period and is working closely with the Council and Homes England to achieve this.

Policy SP02, Managing Growth (page 50) & Figure 4.2 (page 51)
A modification to Policy SP02(A) and Figure 4.2 is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to acknowledge that housing provision should represent a 'minimum' for consistency with national policy and guidance, and Local Plan Policy R01.

Policy SP05, Construction Management (page 58)
Policy SP05 requires developers to take a considered approach to construction management and seeks to manage construction activity to minimise local disturbance. CEG supports this policy and will bring forward the development at DHGV in this way. Criterion B might usefully clarify that this refers to other major 'committed' development.

Policy SP06, Effective Delivery of Development (page 60)
Policy SP06 requires development proposals for large allocation sites to be developed in partnership with the Council, infrastructure providers and relevant organisations through a masterplanning approach. This may include an independent Design Review Panel process, which is an approach supported by the NPPF (paragraph 129). CEG supports this policy and is bringing forward the development of DHGV in this manner, with an independent Design Review Panel process and working in partnership with the Council and other relevant organisations as necessary.
A footnote might usefully clarify what constitutes large complex allocation sites as far as the Council is concerned.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 These Representations on the Brentwood Borough Council Reg 19 draft Local Plan have been prepared on behalf of Croudace Homes who are promoting their site (Officers Meadows - site number 034), which falls within the broader allocation of "Land North of Shenfield". The allocation encompasses several land ownerships, including Sites 158, 235, 087, 263 and 276, as well as the "Officer's Meadow" site (034), all of which make up the allocation Policy R03. It should be noted that Croudace Homes has controlling land interest in Site 034 only, therefore whilst development proposals have taken the other sites into account, this document is in respect of the "Officer's Meadow" site.
1.2 "Land North of Shenfield" was previously promoted through the Reg 18 Local Plan process (see Site Allocations Map Jan 2016 which supported the Draft Local Plan) historically as one of three separate strategic sites, now shown in the Reg 19 draft Local Plan site allocation as one site, "Officer's Meadow and surrounding land" (ref. Policy R03) allocated for residential development. The "Officer's Meadow" site is the focus of these Representations to the Reg 19 draft Local Plan and is hereby referred to as "the Site".
1.3 These representations are submitted to the Local Plan consultation document and set out our support for the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Local Plan in terms of the proposed spatial strategy and the identification of the Site as an allocation for growth.
1.4 These representations are focused on the Site allocation and demonstrate that the allocation is "sound" and deliverable having regard to National policy and a number of technical matters for the Site. It also reviews the Local Plan in terms of soundness of the Duty to Co-operate, the proposed spatial strategy (inc. Sustainability Appraisal) and other policies in the Plan including for Development Management purposes.
1.5 These representations are supported by technical reports included as appendices, which, on behalf of Croudace Homes, provide the background evidence to support the allocation and demonstrates it is "suitable", "available", "achievable" and therefore "deliverable". This will be referred to in these representations and it has regard to BBC's Evidence Base. The technical reports prepared by the consultant team, detail matters concerning:
* Transport;
* Landscape/Green Belt;
* Drainage;
* Noise
* Ecology;
* Archaeology; and
* Masterplanning.
* Shenfield High School "All through" education provision proposals.
1.6 The following sections of these representations are set out as follows:
* Section 2.0 - National Policy;
* Section 3.0 - Duty to Co-operate;
* Section 4.0 - Local Plan Strategy;
* Section 5.0 - Policy LP R03 -Land North of Shenfield (Officer's Meadow);
* Section 6.0 - Delivery of Land North of Shenfield (Officer's Meadow);
* Section 7.0 - Soundness of other policies in the Local Plan; and
* Section 8.0 - Conclusion.
2.0 NATIONAL POLICY
2.1 This section provides an overview of the NPPF with particular regard to plan-making. Other policies in the NPPF will also be referred to later in these representations.
i) National Planning Policy Framework
2.2 On 24 July 2018, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018 NPPF) was published by National Government, setting out the planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied in both plan-making and decision-taking. Post 24 January 2019 any plans submitted after this date must refer to the revised NPPF. This document therefore focusses on the revised 2018 NPPF.
2.3 The revised NPPF introduces the Government's standardised methodology for assessing housing needs. For those LPAs which do not submit plans within the NPPF's transitional period, the standard method will apply as a starting point for assessing housing needs.
a) Plan-Making
2.4 The NPPF 2018 (Para 35) sets out the requirement for Local Plans to be examined by an independent Inspector whose role is to assess whether the Plan has been prepared in accordance with legal and procedural requirements, and whether it is "sound". An LPA should submit a Plan for Examination which it considers is "sound" - namely that it is:
* Positively prepared (as a minimum seeking to meet the area's objectively assessed needs);
* Justified;
* Effective; and
* Consistent with national policy.
2.5 These representations will assess the Pre-Submission Local Plan against the tests of soundness, as above. The next section details the Duty to Co-operate in this regard.
3.0 DUTY TO CO-OPERATE
3.1 This section considers the legal compliance and procedural matters associated with the Local Plan with regard to the "Duty to Co-operate".
i) Policy Framework
3.2 The "Duty to Co-operate" as provided for in Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 came into effect on 15 Nov 2011. The "duty" was introduced under the 2011 Act to address the impact of the loss of the "top-down" effect from the Regional Strategy and to offer a transparent way in which LPAs should relate to one another on cross boundary issues. The "duty" is now shared between LPAs requiring them to collaborate on cross-boundary matters and issues of sub-regional and regional importance, especially housing provision and infrastructure issues.
3.3 The NPPF 2018 (Paras 24-27) is clear in directing LPAs as to the importance of the "Duty to Co-Operate" and the pro-active approach necessary to ensure a collaborative approach to reflect individual local plans.
ii) BBC's 'Duty to Co-Operate' (DtC)
3.4 The NPPF recommends that where a Housing Market Area (HMA) extends across more than one local authority plan makers should assess need for housing for the whole HMA, rather than just the individual authority. The SHMA (Oct 2018) sets out that Brentwood District is a self-contained Housing Market Area (HMA). On this basis, no further joint evidence base documents were commissioned, but strategic work continues with South Essex Councils.
3.5 The Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for BBC amounts to 380 dwellings per annum (dpa) as the SHMA advises that the Council plans on the previous OAN evidence (despite referring to 350 dwellings per annum (dpa) following the current guidance, for the period 2019-2029). In addition, the Council propose additional land allocations over and above "need" (20% above 380 dpa). This approach is welcomed in the SHMA guidance, as overprovision should provide additional flexibility in the supply and delivery of sites.
3.6 Since the draft Brentwood Borough Council Reg 19 Local Plan has been published, the PPG HENA details the standard method for assessing housing need and now clarifies that the 2014-based household projections published by the Office for National Statistics should be used to set the 'baseline' for the standard method calculation. The standard method number for Brentwood is 452 dpa.
3.7 The OAN is 7,752 dwellings during the Plan period (2016 - 2033) and it is welcomed that the Local Plan is seeking to meet this need in full (and potentially overprovide). This is addressed further in the housing strategy section to follow. The Plan also provides an equitable distribution of new homes across the HMA and this will be addressed under the Sustainability Appraisal.
3.8 It is evident that BBC has engaged with neighbouring authorities regarding cross-boundary matters as well as meeting housing need, as set out in the Duty to Co-operate Brentwood Position Statement (February 2019).
3.9 As part of the DtC the Borough would normally need to consider whether it is a sustainable location for unmet cross boundary need. However, as Brentwood is a Green Belt authority (89% is Green Belt), it is unlikely that Brentwood will be in a position to accept any unmet housing need from the South Essex housing market area. The Essex neighbours (Chelmsford and Epping Forest) both have plans submitted for examination that are not reliant on Brentwood accepting any of their housing growth.
3.10 Ongoing Duty to Cooperate work continues with South Essex as part of a strategic growth study and participation in a Joint Strategic Plan.
3.11 The Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) memorandum of understanding was recently signed by Basildon Borough Council, Brentwood Borough Council, Castle Point Borough Council, Essex County Council, Rochford District Council, Southend on Sea Brough Council and Thurrock Borough Council (Jan 2018). This highlights the constraints and challenges facing other local authorities in terms of meeting their housing needs, and emphasises the importance upon BBC in terms of meeting its own needs in full. We therefore welcome BBC's aspirations in seeking to meet its own needs and indeed in seeking to provide to some flexibility too.
3.12 Duty to Co-operate discussions have confirmed that immediate neighbouring authorities are aiming to meet OAHN within their boundaries, but some will have difficulties in this regard. However, as Brentwood is a Green Belt authority, it is unlikely that Brentwood will be in a position to accept any unmet housing need from the South Essex housing market area.
3.13 To ensure the Local Plan is justified and effective (NPPF, para 35), it is considered that the above issues should continue to be updated in the evolving DtC Statement (February 2019).
3.14 The Council needs to continue to have regard to neighbouring authority plans and adequately co-operate with neighbouring authorities, rather than awaiting the future joint strategic plan, as well as Essex County Council plans, and strategies of other relevant bodies.
3.15 This working can be further supported by the Duty to Cooperate meetings dealing with the strategic planning issues relating to the South East Essex 2050 Programme. Also, the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) Statement of Common Ground which includes a commitment to joint working through the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan for South Essex.
3.16 It is recommended that BBC continues to embrace opportunities to work with the other members of ASELA, as well as producing statements of common ground with its neighbouring authorities, which is a key element of plan preparation, in order to secure a "sound" Local Plan which meets the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate.
4.0 LOCAL PLAN STRATEGY
4.1 This section examines and provides commentary on the proposed spatial strategy in the Local Plan, insofar that it relates to the housing and employment provision, and the allocation of strategic sites for growth including within the Green Belt.
4.2 First, we set out our representations on the Sustainability Appraisal for the Local Plan.
a) Sustainability Appraisal
4.3 The BBC Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment) provides an assessment as to how the spatial strategy for the Local Plan was arrived (identifying, describing and evaluating the likely significant effects of implementing the plan).
4.4 The strategy has evolved from the early 'Pathway to a Sustainable Brentwood' Issues and Options document (2009), which set out a series of strategic objectives. The overarching priorities set out in the Interim SA (Jan 2018) are:
* Environment and Housing Management;
* Community and Health;
* Economic Development;
* Planning & Licensing; and
* Transformation.
4.5 In order to achieve these priorities the following plan themes have been set out (with associated objectives as set out in the SA):
* Managing Growth;
* Sustainable communities;
* Economic prosperity;
* Environmental protection and enhancement;
* Quality of Life and community infrastructure; and
* Transport and Movement.
4.6 Having regard to these themes and objectives, 10 No. reasonable spatial strategy alternatives were drawn up in the SA. The desire to deliver at least one large-scale, strategic site (likely for a mix of uses, to include both housing and employment) is quite well established, recognising: A) limited opportunities within settlements; B) no potential to export 'unmet needs' (as discussed); and C) the alternative of piecemeal Green Belt development dispersed widely has significant draw-backs (this option was appraised within the 2013 Interim SA Report).
4.7 A number of strategic site options have been examined over recent years, including through consultation and SA work, such that there is now a refined understanding of those sites that are genuine contenders for allocation through the Local Plan - There is specific mention of North of Brentwood and ....' the potential for expansion to impact 'in-combination' with other potential extensions to the urban Brentwood/Shenfield area, most notably the potential 825 homes on land at Officers Meadow (directly to the east)'.
4.8 The SA goes on to note that there is a need to give careful consideration to growth opportunities at Brentwood/Shenfield urban area.......Brownfield opportunities are limited; hence there is a need to examine Green Belt urban extension options. All land around the urban area is given brief consideration, with reference to the site options and the designated constraints that exist. Specifically:
North of Shenfield
A large area of land is bounded by the railway line to the east, and the A1023 to the west; plus there is a parcel of land to the north of the A1023, bounded by the A12. There are relatively few designated constraints, although considerations include a spur of Arnolds Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS), and proximity to the railway and main roads. This land parcel comprises three HELAA sites, all of which are preferred allocations at the current time (Officer's Meadow; Land east of A1023; and Land north of A1023).
[SA of Brentwood Local Plan, January 2019 - page 113]
4.9 Of the options considered, the SA concluded that "Option 3" Dunton Hills Garden Village only, in addition to the sites that are a 'constant' across the reasonable alternatives, was the preferred option for growth as it performs well in terms of the majority of sustainability objectives. Furthermore, the option of identifying the delivery of 'constant' sites was also preferred with the objective of meeting both short and long-term needs.
4.10 We fully support and consider the approach of the Sustainability Appraisal to be "sound" in terms of alternative strategies assessed for the Local Plan and consider that the most sustainable option has been arrived at.
4.11 The SA reviewed site options that could deliver the proposed spatial strategy. This includes "suitable" sites as derived from the SHLAA against a series of 12No SA criteria including Housing, Landscape, Community and well-being and other sustainability considerations. This included a "red, amber, green" assessment of sites as against the selected 12No criteria. We support this approach and consider it to meet the requirements of the SEA in terms of the assessment of environmental impacts - this includes BBC's assessment of the Site at North of Shenfield for which we also fully support and consider to be "sound".
4.12 The process allowed for two strategic site options to be discounted (considered 'unreasonable') given planning/sustainability considerations and deliverability considerations. The extent of reasonable sites has been restricted to balance the need to meet housing needs as well as ensuring that pressure will not be put on infrastructure nor pose a serious risk to air quality, local amenity, natural and heritage assets and biodiversity.
4.13 Our Client's considerations of the Council's Sustainability Appraisal have been informed by the accompanying "Review of Sustainability Appraisal" (Barton Willmore EIA, March 2019), which is attached to these representations. (See Appendix 01).
4.14 The preferred approach is Option 3, which involves allocating Dunton Hills Garden Village only, in addition to the sites that are a 'constant' across the reasonable alternatives (including Officers Meadows), and thereby putting in place an overall land supply sufficient to provide the required housing target dpa (assuming no delayed delivery).
4.15 We support the overall approach to the Sustainability Appraisal, insofar as:
* It follows a robust process in evaluating alternative options for growth as well as specific site options;
* The approach to individual site options is considered to be sound; and
* It is considered to be "sound" in that it arrives at the most reasonable option for growth - Dunton Hills Garden Village in addition to the sites that are 'constant' across the reasonable alternatives- as encompassing the allocation at Land North of Shenfield (034).
b) Housing Strategy
4.16 On 19 February 2019, MHCLG published the long-awaited outcome of the 'Technical consultation on updates to national planning policy and guidance', which clarifies the methodology for assessing housing need incorporated in the updated Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (HENA) Published on 20 Feb 2019. The standard method for assessing housing need is detailed in the PPG HENA and now clarifies that the 2014-based household projections published by the Office for National Statistics should be used to set the 'baseline' for the standard method calculation. The standard method number for Brentwood is 452 dpa.
4.17 In order to provide flexibility in the supply of housing sites, help boost delivery and to aim towards the standard method figure, the Council has proposed a further 20% supply buffer when allocating development sites in the Local Plan above the established annual housing figure of 380 dwellings per year, as set out in the SHMA. The buffer allows for an additional housing supply in the borough to be maintained throughout the Local Plan period and is supported in national planning guidance. The Reg 19 Draft Local Plan refers to 456 dpa based on the 20% SHMA uplift on 380 dpa.
4.18 The Local Plan sets out (Policy SP02) the OAN for housing in the Borough as being 7,752 dwellings during the Plan period (2016 - 2033); which when projected across the 17-year plan period gives an annualised housing delivery target of 456 new homes per year. The Council has not been able to identify a 5-yr HLS that delivers this current annualised requirement. When calculating HLS for our representations we have based our assumptions on 452 dpa which is the most up to date guidance (February 2019).
4.19 As a result of 89% of the Borough being designated Green Belt, the Council advises it is difficult to achieve a five-year supply, as many allocated sites within the Green Belt will not be available until the adoption of the Plan. On this basis a larger proportion of sites will not be delivered until after 2023, when they begin to benefit from detailed planning consent.
4.20 Therefore, a stepped trajectory is proposed, with an initial housing delivery target of 310 dpa to 2023 has been set, followed by a higher target of 584 dpa thereafter, which totals 7,752 homes overall in accordance with Policy SP02.
4.21 The Local Plan (Chapter 4, Policy SP02: Managing Growth) indicates that the residual requirement will be sought largely through new development being directed towards the site allocations set out in Chapter 8; and highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. These are as follows and seek to deliver circa. 4,500 units up to 2033:
Table 4: Strategic Sites [see attachment]
4.22 In terms of the allocation at Land North of Shenfield ("Officers Meadow"), this includes an overall requirement across the whole site allocation at Policy R03 for 825 units to be delivered in the Plan period. This delivery schedule is supported and is addressed further in the next section.
4.23 We support the housing strategy for the Local Plan and welcome that BBC is seeking to meet its housing needs in full. This is particularly important having regard to the likely inability of adjacent authorities (referred to on page 5) to meet their own needs. We therefore consider the housing strategy in the Plan to be "sound" in accordance with the NPPF (Para 35).
c) Employment Strategy
4.24 Policy PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land identifies that provision is made for at least 47.39ha of new employment land (B-use) to address the needs of the Borough up to 2033. To ensure that the Plan is more effective, it is recommended that this is followed by supporting text setting out the extent of need as derived from the Brentwood Economic Futures report (2018) and Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2018).
4.25 This need is proposed to be met through allocations set out at Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations. This includes provision of appropriate new employment development on North of A1023 (part of the Land North of Shenfield R03 land use allocation). We fully support this aspect of the Plan including the broad strategy underpinning both the housing and employment allocations. The employment strategy for the Local Plan is justified and "sound" in line with the NPPF (para 35).
d) Five-Year Housing Land Supply
4.26 The Local Plan is unclear in terms of being able to demonstrate a 5-yr HLS of housing land for the purposes of the Plan.
4.27 The most recent AMR (Nov 2018) demonstrates that BBC currently has a supply of 4.1 years - against requirement of 411.6dpa (2,058 units over 5-years) which encompasses a 20% buffer as required by the NPPF and Housing Delivery Test. This is as a result of persistent under delivery, as delivery is currently calculated as 50.83% for BBC, below the 85% requirement.
4.28 The AMR 5-yr supply relates to the period 2018/19 - 2023 and concerns, inter-alia, sites with planning permission, existing commitments and strategic sites at Dunton Hills Garden Village, West Hordon Industrial Estate, Ford Headquarters, etc. The Plan's trajectory details the delivery at proposed allocated sites (2016/17 - 2032/33) amounting to 6,088 units.
4.29 The 2018 AMR suggests the delivery of 819 units (Allocations, Reg 19 Local Plan) within the same timeframe (2018-2023). The figure is derived from existing permissions, developments, allocations and commitments, as well as the 20% buffer, is 1,694.7 units, and concludes the supply is 4.1 years (as set out below):
Table 6: Five Year Supply Position (2018-2023) [see attachment]
4.30 The AMR 2018 refers to the PPPG: HELAA, which sets out how a 5-yr HLS is measured where LPAs have a "stepped" rather than annual average requirements; it states:
Five-year land supply is measured across the plan period against the specific stepped requirements for the particular 5-year period. Stepped trajectories will need to ensure that planned housing requirements are met fully within the plan period.
[Paragraph 017, Reference ID: 2a-017-20180913]
4.31 The AMR 2018 sets out (Table 4: Comparison of annualised housing delivery target and projected completions) a housing delivery target of 7,752 homes (456 dpa over the 17-year Plan period), together with annualised projected housing completions. The report states that from a comparison of this data an initial stepped requirement of 310dpa to 2023, followed by a higher stepped up requirement of 584dpa for the remainder of the Plan period, is a logical approach to reach 7,752 homes by 2033.
4.32 As a result of the high proportion of Green Belt in the Borough, it is extremely difficult to achieve the annualised 5-yr HLS requirement. This is because, as set out in the AMR 2018, sites on the edge of settlements currently within the Green Belt are not available for development purposes until the emerging Local Plan is adopted. Therefore, the potential for a stepped trajectory has been proposed, which delivers a greater proportion of the required homes beyond 2023.
4.33 The above demonstrates that BBC is not fully able to demonstrate a 5-yr HLS for Local Plan purposes. This position could be expedited by allowing allocated sites, such as "Officers Meadow" to come forward 1-2 years sooner, within the present 5-year period, to help meet the required 5-yr HLS position.
5.0 LAND NORTH OF SHENFIELD - POLICY R03
5.1 Land North of Shenfield (Policy R03: Strategic Site - Land North of Shenfield) is allocated in the Pre-submission Reg 19 Local Plan and the extent of the allocation is shown below:
Figure 1: Land North of Shenfield- Allocation Area [see attachment]
5.2 This shows the Site area as allocated as a whole; despite Land North of Shenfield having 6 land parcels within it, namely Site parcels 034, 158, 235, 087,263 and 276, as identified at Appendix 1: Housing Trajectory in the Reg 19 Local Plan and previously set out in earlier iterations of the Reg 18 Local Plan suite of documentation.
5.3 We set out below our comments on Policy RO3 and Appendix 1- Housing Trajectory in regard to the proposed delivery rates. This is largely supportive, however there are some aspects we do not consider to be "sound".
i) Amount and Type of Development:
a. Provision for around 825 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing.
5.4 This criterion is supported/considered to be sound and "effective" in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF (para 61) relating to creating mixed and balance communities. The proposals for the Site will therefore be able to be delivered in accordance with this policy objective.
b. Provision of land (circa 2.1 hectares) for a co-located 2FE [additional text] primary school and early years and childcare nursery (Use Class D1). To be located adjacent to Alexander Lane. [additional text]
5.5 We largely support this criterion, albeit consider it should be amended (as above) to provide for greater clarity. Therefore as presently worded, we object to this criterion.
5.6 Forecasted figures contained in 'Commissioning School Places in Essex 2016-2021' indicate that there will be a deficit in pupil places by 2020/21 when accounting for demographic factors and the proposed uplift in residential development.
5.7 Earlier/recent work undertaken by the High School (and others) considered the anticipated need for a new 1FE Primary School. The proposed policy wording should clarify that it is now proposing a 2FE Primary School. We have prepared an accompanying note (Appendix 02) that reflects are discussions in this regard.
5.8 Consideration should be given to the location of the Primary School. Again, the recent work undertaken by the High School has examined this, inc the early years facility and nursery element, and that it should ideally be located on the existing school playing fields, just north of Alexander Lane. This would enable the Shenfield High School to deliver an 'all through' school provision, comprehensively expanding the educational offer available on-site.
5.9 The NPPF (para 94) seeks that LPAs take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting school place requirement and to development that will widen choice in education. The principles of this element of Policy R03 is therefore "consistent" with the NPPF, but the wording should be clarified further. We would be happy to continue discussions with Shenfield High School, BBC & ECC Officers in respect of seeking to agree the most suitable location for the primary school provision.
5.10 In terms of its own generated education requirements, the allocation would give rise to a need for a 1FE Primary School and financial contributions towards secondary school provision. Through positive discussions with Shenfield High School, we have been working closely towards its objective of becoming a "through-school" (by encompassing Primary provision) and contributing towards secondary provision (at the High School) on a pro-rata basis.
c. Provision for a residential care home (around 60 bed scheme as part of the overall allocation).
5.11 The principle of this criterion is supported/ considered to be sound and a care home could be accommodated on the 'Officer's Meadow' site, however this should be subject to the balanced and reasonable distribution of other infrastructure across the Site allocation as a whole. The NPPF (section 5) on "Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes" requires that housing need for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies. The provision of a residential care home in Policy R03 would contribute towards the offer of care for older people in Shenfield and is therefore "consistent" with the NPPF, in accordance with national policy and is deemed sound.
d. Provision for up to [additional text] 5% self-build and custom build across the entire allocation area.
5.12 The principle of this criterion is supported, but not as presently worded. We therefore object to this criterion in its present form.
5.13 Section 1 of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) requires each relevant authority to keep a register of individuals and associations seeking to acquire serviced plots for their own self-build and custom housebuilding. Whilst the provision of self-build and custom build should be considered, the evidence base for a 5% need across the entire allocation should be addressed against the local "needs register" and demand for such provision at the prevailing time.
5.14 In order to align with National policy, the evidence base and local need should be fully assessed before any commitment is made to the provision of this house type in this location. It is therefore considered that this element of Policy R03 is unsound.
5.15 It is recommended that this aspect of the policy is amended to "up to" 5% as shown above, to reflect prevailing "need" at the time.
e. Provision of 2ha of land for employment purposes.
5.16 The provision of 2ha of employment land as part of the wider allocation is agreed in principle. Employment land situated on land north of Chelmsford Road, as per the location identified in the BBC Site Analysis Overview report (Feb 2019), is supported, given its location adjacent the A12. This is the most appropriate location for such provision and is "consistent" with the NPPF (para 20). Therefore, and if situated in this location, this criterion is considered sound.
ii) Development Principles:
a. Comprehensive masterplan and phasing strategy to be prepared and considered as planning applications come forward.
5.17 We support this criterion and it is confirmed that development can come forward and be delivered within the timescale as shown in the housing trajectory. We also support a comprehensive masterplan and phasing strategy to set out effective phasing of the requisite infrastructure, as identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is "consistent" with the NPPF and is considered sound.
5.18 The overall needs of development must have regard to potential considerations in terms of viability in order to be fully "justified", something not yet addressed in the IDP, which should be rectified in the next iteration of the IDP.
b. Site is identified as a key gateway location and development should reflect this in terms of design quality particularly on land near to Junction 12, A12.
5.19 We broadly support these provisions and the concept masterplan sets out conceptually the land take for development in this location, including the key gateway employment location and residential, however this land is not within our Client's control and as such will be the subject of a separate planning application and detailed framework masterplan. In principle, and from an overall design perspective, this key gateway location is consistent with Section 12 of the NPPF and is "justified" and therefore considered sound.
c. Vehicular access via Chelmsford Road (A1023) and Alexander Lane.
5.20 It is recognised that the delivery of vehicular access via Chelmsford road and Alexander Lane is a necessity as part of these proposals. Our Client's accompanying Transport Strategy (Vectos, March 2019) provides evidence to support the development of the Officer's Meadow Site in terms of reducing the need to travel and providing opportunities for non-car travel. This is "consistent" with the NPPF, in particular Section 9 on "Promoting Sustainable Transport". The provision of access via both Chelmsford Road (A1023) and Alexander Lane allows for flexibility in terms of phasing and means that development can take place simultaneously in more than one location on the Site. It is therefore considered that this criteria is sound.
d. Potential for diversion of Alexander Lane, creating a quiet lane for pedestrians and cyclists, with the provision for new and improved route through the development site linking to Chelmsford Road.
5.21 The potential diversion of Alexander Lane is welcomed in terms of pedestrian safety and improved access. This is because a quieter Alexander Lane will improve access to local schools, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and the existing PRoW, encouraging active mobility. This policy is therefore considered "justified" in light of the NPPF (para 102).
e. Enhancing sustainable links with Shenfield station and local services and facilities in the wider area.
5.22 The accompanying (Vectos) Transport Strategy confirms that the travel opportunities afforded by the service at Shenfield Railway Station and local bus routes will ensure that travel by public transport is a realistic option for future residents. The NPPF (para 102) states that opportunities to promote public transport use should be identified and pursued by Local Plans. This policy is therefore considered to be "consistent" with the objectives of the NPPF and is sound.
f. Provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow for good accessibility.
5.23 The development of Officer's Meadow would provide opportunities to encourage walking and cycling through new and improved routes and crossing facilities. Improving the accessibility within an already sustainable setting will also help to minimise vehicular traffic, in accordance with National policy. This is "consistent" with the NPPF objectives set out in both Section 8 "Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities" and Section 9 "Promoting Sustainable Transport" .
g. Provision for new multi-functional green infrastructure including public open space.
5.24 The provision of green infrastructure and open space throughout the Site is supported. The development of Officer's Meadow introduces the opportunity to introduce ecological corridors, open space and green infrastructure linkages, as well as enhancing the recreational resource and connectivity value of the Site. The NPPF (para 181) states that planning policies should maximise opportunities for green infrastructure provision and enhancement. This policy is therefore considered "effective" in terms of meeting the requirements set out in the NPPF.
h. Maintain and enhance Public Right of Way within the site and to the wider area.
5.25 Our Client's accompanying Landscape Assessment (Barton Willmore, March 2019) provides information to support the maintenance and enhancement of the existing PRoW on site. Although limiting development, this PRoW allows for the opportunity to introduce ecological corridors, open space and green infrastructure linkages. The NPPF (para 98) states that policies should protect and enhance the PRoW, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users. It is therefore considered that this policy is "consistent" and sound in accordance with the NPPF.
i. Protect and where appropriate enhance the Local Wildlife Site (Arnold's Wood).
5.26 Arnold's Wood comprises a narrow strip of Ancient Woodland to the north and the east of the Site. The accompanying Ecological Report (Aspect Ecology (March 2019) identifies this feature as a Local Wildlife Site, whereby appropriate conservation and enhancement through development is a priority. The NPPF (para 170) seeks that planning policies contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, such as area of ancient woodland. The protection and enhancement of the Local Wildlife Site is therefore "justified" with regard to the NPPF, leading to the consideration of this policy as sound.
j. Provide for appropriate landscaping and buffers along sensitive boundaries adjoining the A12 and railway line.
5.27 Our Client's emerging proposals have been informed by a series of technical reports, including the Landscape Report, which provides for a planted buffer to be provided along the A1023 Chelmsford Road to help soften views of the proposed residential development at Officer's Meadow. This policy is therefore "effective" in terms of protecting residential amenity and enhancing the natural environment. The use of appropriate landscaping buffers is also in accordance with the NPPF (Section 15) on "Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment", making this criterion sound.
iii) Infrastructure Requirements:
a. Provide pedestrian and cycle crossing points across Chelmsford Road (A1023) where appropriate.
5.28 The accompanying Transport Strategy (Vectos) provides for new and enhanced pedestrian and cycle connections within the Site and to the wider area. As individual development parcels are separated by Chelmsford Road, pedestrian and cycle crossings are required where appropriate to allow safe connection between parcels (as identified in by Infrastructure Requirements). This criteria is therefore supported as the provision of crossing points across Chelmsford Road (A1023) will help to maximise opportunities for sustainable transport modes throughout the Site, to Shenfield railway station and various local services. The NPPF (para 104) states that planning policies should provide for high quality walking and cycling networks. This policy is therefore considered "consistent" with national policy.
b. Provision for improved bus service.
5.29 The provision of an improved bus service, with reference to the IDP, is supported. This criterion is sound in the light of Para 110 of the NPPF. It is therefore "justified".
c. 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.
5.30 The majority of the Site is located within Flood Zone 1. As referred to in the accompanying Drainage Report (JNP, March 2019), the critical drainage can be dealt with by the creation of a surface water storage basin/wetland area to attenuate and release the overland surface water flows from off site at a reduced rate. An individually designed mitigation scheme can be implemented on-site via a variety of SuDS, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF (para 163). These components will also adequately provide for surface water flows generated by the proposed development. The above criteria is therefore considered to be sound and "effective".
5.31 In addition to the above elements of physical infrastructure, and as mentioned previously in respect of other aspects of Policy RO3 allocation, we are also mindful of accompanying social infrastructure - in particular the educational needs of the resultant residents and the relationship with the adjoining Shenfield High School. It is therefore appropriate to reiterate our Client's willingness to work closely with the High School in helping to deliver its aspirations in providing for a "through school" (with Primary provision) and our off-site educational financial contributions will be directed to support this.
5.32 In overall terms, we largely support the provisions of Policy RO3 and have sought to reflect this is the accompanying illustrative concept masterplan, which demonstrates the delivery of the requisite infrastructure for the Site Allocation as a whole including:
- Social infrastructure - primary school, early years and nursery care;
- Transport infrastructure - pedestrian and cycle crossing points;
- Critical drainage mitigation; and
- Blue and Green Infrastructure.
5.33 The above demonstrates our overall support for the allocation of the Site and we can confirm that the proposed development is deliverable within the timescales established by BBC. The delivery of Land North of Shenfield ("Officer's Meadows") is addressed in the next section.
6.0 DELIVERY OF LAND NORTH OF SHENFIELD
6.1 A range of technical work and evidence has been worked up for the Site and which demonstrates the deliverability of the proposals. This technical input is set out in full in the Technical Representations accompanying these submissions.
6.2 This report therefore does not seek to repeat the technical material in full, instead it provides a summary of the main disciplines and how they relate to the delivery of the project.
6.3 This includes work in relation to the following disciplines:
i) Transport (Vectos);
ii) Landscape/Green Belt Assessment (Barton Willmore Landscape);
iii) Drainage (JNP Group)
iv) Noise (Sharps Gayler)
v) Ecology (Aspect Ecology);
vi) Archaeology (Albion Archaeology); and
vii) Masterplan (Barton Willmore Design).
6.4 Below is a brief summary of each of the update reports submitted in terms of the delivery of the scheme.
i) Transport
6.5 The accompanying Transport Strategy (Vectos) (Appendix 03) sets out the principle of a sustainable transport strategy for Officer's Meadow, reducing the need to travel and providing opportunities for non-car journeys. The proximity of the Site to local services and the proposed 'all through' school across the wider site will reduce trip generation and promote sustainable communities.
6.6 The Transport Strategy identifies the junction location i.e. A1023 Chelmsford Road/A129 Hutton Road/A1023 Shenfield Road and the appropriate mitigation measures, which include the implementation of MOVA or similar as a mitigation, in order provide adequate capacity. The access and egress via Alexander Lane will be provided in the form of simple priority junctions.
6.7 The new access points/roundabouts can be fully accommodated within the Site area and/or on highway land. Highways improvements are therefore deliverable as part of the comprehensive development for the scheme. As such, Land North of Shenfield is suitable for allocation in the Local Plan, in terms of highways and transport constraints.
ii) Landscape and Visual Appraisal/Green Belt Review
6.8 A Landscape and Visual Appraisal (BW Landscape) (Appendix 04) has been undertaken to provide a review of the landscape character and visual amenity of the Site and surrounding area. These aspects have informed the parameters of the illustrative masterplan and have demonstrated that the Site is suitable to be released through 'exceptional circumstances' for development, as addressed below. It supports BBC's removal of Land North of Shenfield from the present Green Belt designation, which presently washes over the entire Site and its surrounding environs.
6.9 Direct adverse impacts of development on the wider Green Belt setting would be minimised by locating strategic open space on prominent land, particularly in the north east the Site. Low density housing could be located in the most prominent areas, framing the retained Ancient Woodland area to the north and east of the Site. A PRoW also traverses the Site, enabling the introduction of ecological corridors, open space and green infrastructure linkages, as well as enhancing the recreational resource and connectivity of the Site.
6.10 Development of the Site would form a logical extension that is in keeping with the existing settlement, better connecting the ribbon development between Chelmsford Road and the settlement edge of Alexander Lane. In terms of visibility, glimpses of the Site can be seen from elevated views to the west. However, the landform ensures that it is largely well contained by a combination of vegetation cover and built form, restricting long-distance views. A landscape-led approach to development within the Site would seek to ensure that existing defensible boundaries continue to prevent unrestricted sprawl.
6.11 The LVA concludes that allocation of the Site would result in successful assimilation and integration of new residential development, with the potential for adverse effects on the landscape setting moderated, as required by the NPPF. The Site is considered to be of "low sensitivity" as it is of a low landscape value and the localised visual envelope of the Site, coupled with the surrounding land uses, lends itself to residential development. The Site makes a minimal contribution towards the 5No purposes of the Green Belt, making it suitable for release and able to contribute towards a suitable pattern of development for Shenfield.
iii) Drainage
6.12 A Flood Risk and Drainage Note has been prepared (JNP Group) (Appendix 05). This confirms the location of the majority of the Site within Flood Zone 1, where there is the lowest probability of flooding and where new development should be steered. A small part of the Site is located within Zones 2 and 3. Built development (housing, social infrastructure, etc.) will avoid Flood Risk areas.
6.13 All proposed buildings within "Officer's Meadows" are to be located in Flood Zone 1. Essential infrastructure which passes through a small area designated as Flood Zone 3 will be subject to the "Exception Test" and site-specific flood risk assessment to demonstrate safe access & egress from the site and that the development does not increase flood risk both on and off site. Safe access & egress will be provided off Chelmsford Road A1023 and Alexander Lane. Where affected, allowance for flood compensation storage will be provided to ensure no net loss in flood storage.
6.14 The critical drainage can be dealt with by the creation of surface water storage basins/wetland areas to attenuate and release the overland surface water flows form off site at a reduced rate. Development generated surface water flows can be dealt with via SuDS components and a storage basin/wetland attenuation area. The Site is therefore suitable and deliverable from a flood risk and drainage perspective.
iv) Noise
6.15 An assessment of "likely noise constraints" has been undertaken (Sharps Gayler) (Appendix 06) to identify potential constraints relating to noise and vibration upon Officer's Meadow. The below conclusion is based on a desktop assessment, informed by computer modelling of transportation noise sources in the area (A12, A1023 and the mainline railway).
6.16 Whilst there is a low to medium risk on the boundaries of the Site with Chelmsford Road and the rail line, the majority of the Site presents a low risk. At low noise levels, the Site is likely to be acceptable from a noise perspective, provided that a good acoustic design process is followed at the detailed application stage, particularly for development within 50m of Chelmsford Road and the rail line.
6.17 The assessment concluded that there are no significant constraints on Site in relation to noise. Land North of Shenfield is therefore suitable and deliverable from an acoustic perspective.
v) Ecology
6.18 An Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken (Aspect Ecology) (Appendix 07). This report confirms that the Site comprises a range of habitats including arable, woodland, grassland, watercourse, hedgerows, scrub and lines of trees. The woodland at the north-east of the Site, the watercourse and the hedgerows are of elevated ecological value and are considered to be important ecological features.
6.19 Protected species such as bats, badgers, dormice and reptiles have not been identified within the vicinity of the site at this stage. Although thought to have 'good' suitability for Great Crested Newt, a DNA survey (2015) found the pond nearest to the Site unlikely to support a Great Crested Newt population. A further Great Crested Newt presence/absence survey of all relevant ponds associated with the Site is to be undertaken in 2019.
6.20 The habitats at the Site are currently unmanaged from an ecology point of view and the development proposal presents the opportunity of securing suitable management practices, appropriate mitigation and 'net gains' in terms of biodiversity. When considering ecological constraints, the Site is therefore both suitable and deliverable, subject to further survey work.
vi) Heritage Assessment
6.21 A Desk-based Heritage Assessment (Albion Archaeology) accompanies these representations, which has also been informed by a preliminary walk-over of the Site. The accompanying report (Appendix 08) reviews the potential for below ground archaeological interest and potential impact arising from development on such features; as well as an assessment of any direct impact on potential heritage assets.
6.22 No heritage assets other than the crop mark of a bomb crater, have been recorded in the proposed development area. Other heritage assets comprise former buildings, the postulated course of a Roman road, find-spots and historic settlement cores, whose setting will not be impacted by the proposed development. The adjacent railway lines, roads, buildings and vegetation suggest that the proposed new buildings are unlikely to be visible from these heritage assets. The potential impact on the setting is therefore assessed as "no change". The significance of this impact is "insignificant".
6.23 The potential for archaeological remains has been assessed covering prehistoric to modern periods. In general terms the "significance" of any remains is low to moderate. Any potential impact of the new development on potential buried archaeological remains could be mitigated by measures to investigate and record the presence/absence of potential archaeological assets. Officer's Meadows is thereby deliverable from an archaeological perspective.
vii) Masterplan
6.24 The accompanying illustrative concept masterplan (BW Design) (Appendix 09) has been developed in response to the above technical information prepared for the Site.
6.25 This demonstrates the ability of the Site itself to deliver:
* Circa 510 homes ("Officer's Meadow" site) inc. affordable provision;
* The proposed dwellings can be delivered within the timescale of the housing trajectory, with varying densities;
* Other potential linkages to Chelmsford Road (A1023) and Alexander Lane;
* A 60-bed care home;
* A Local Centre/ community facility;
* Multi-functional green and blue infrastructure; and
* Sustainable transport links.
6.26 Moreover, the illustrative concept masterplan also demonstrates the delivery of:
* Significant areas of Public Open Space encompassing:
- Natural and Semi-Natural Green Spaces;
- Outdoor Sports Facilities; and
- Children's/Young People's Play Area.
* Primary School provision on the adjoining Shenfield High School.
6.27 The above provides an overview of the technical inputs to the Land North of Shenfield (Officer's Meadow) and which confirms that the Site and proposals for it are deliverable within the Local Plan context. The proposals for the Site form part of an iterative process and further information will come to light in advance of a planning application to ascertain the detailed parameters for the Site.
6.28 These matters will be "screened" for a full Environmental Impact Assessment for a subsequent planning application, and it is envisaged the EIA Screening will be submitted later in 2019.
7.0 SOUNDNESS OF OTHER LOCAL PLAN POLICIES
7.1 This section does not seek to comment on other specific allocations/sites. Instead it focuses on policies of relevance within the Local Plan and sets out our comments and recommendations on these in terms of the tests of soundness in the NPPF.
7.2 Policy SP01: Sustainable Development takes a positive approach towards "Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development" and seeks to apply this in terms of planning applications, in accordance with the Development Plan. The NPPF (para 11) assumes a strong "Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development" in all planning related matters and places a responsibility on LPAs to positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and to, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses. This policy is "consistent" with the NPPF and is therefore sound.
7.3 Policy SP02: Managing Growth seeks to support the delivery of homes by setting out provision for 7,752 new dwellings to be built over the Plan period 2016-2033, at an annual rate of 310 dwellings up to 2022/2023, followed by 584 dwellings from 2023/24-2033. This objective is not supported, as it is considered that this stepped trajectory which delivers a greater proportion of the required homes beyond 2023, could be reviewed to allow more housing to come forward from the period 2021 onwards. This is with particular reference to NPPF (para 23) which states that "strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs". This policy is therefore "not consistent" with the NPPF and not sound.
7.4 We consider that in order to address this, the Council should review its housing trajectory and at the same time, clarify the new dwelling number ahead of the Local Plan submission, to align with the February 2019 agreed position on the 'baseline' for the standard method calculation.
7.5 The Council should, in addition, work with developers to bring applications forward in advance of the adoption of the Local Plan, to meet housing need.
7.6 Policy SP03: Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) states that Brentwood Borough Council is committed to ensuring all new developments promote healthier and inclusive environments. The majority of proposals will be required to assess their impacts on health and well-being upon the capacity of existing health care and social care services and facilities, the environmental impacts, and the promotion of health improvement activities, arising from the development. Developments of 50 or more units are required to submit a Health and Well-Being Impact Assessment, as required by the EPOA HIA Guidance Note.
7.7 This policy is considered to be unsound as it is not "justified". The requirement to undertake a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a superfluous burden on applicants. It should be down to the Local Plan to take into account wider health concerns in the local area and focus policies upon addressing these concerns. Health and well-being should be covered within the polices of the Local Plan and where a development aligns with these, an HIA should not be required.
7.8 Policy SPO4: Developer Contributions refers to the need for all new development to be supported by, and have good access to, all necessary infrastructure. Developers and land owners must work positively with the Council, neighbouring authorities and other infrastructure providers throughout the planning process to ensure that the cumulative impact of development is considered and then mitigated.
7.9 Applicants proposing new development will be expected to make direct provision or contribute towards the delivery of relevant infrastructure, as required by the development either alone or cumulatively with other developments. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) identifies the types of infrastructure required to support the anticipated growth in the borough and includes a summary of the current identified infrastructure projects.
7.10 Policy SPO4 should be more explicit on the exact nature of requirements that the developer may be required to meet to avoid overly onerous requirements or confusion over cumulative impact and phasing with other developments and therefore this policy is not "justified" and is unsound.
7.11 Policy SP05: Construction Management states that all major development should sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme, or equivalent. Major development must consider the cumulative impacts of other major development occurring in the vicinity, to reduce the cumulative impacts.
7.12 It is considered that this policy accords with the NPPF and is therefore found to be sound, with particular reference to NPPF (para 72) which refers to larger scale development supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.
7.13 Policy SP06: Effective Delivery of Development states that proposals for large allocation sites will be expected to be developed in partnership with the Council, infrastructure providers and other relevant organisations, through a collaborative masterplanning approach. Development proposals should submit a supporting statement setting out the sustainable long-term governance and stewardship arrangements for community assets including land, services and facilities such as village halls, community centres, libraries, parks, green spaces, and buildings for sports, leisure, healthcare, education, social, arts and cultural activities. This policy is overly onerous and therefore "unjustified". This policy is therefore considered to be unsound.
7.14 Policy BE02: Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency requires all development proposals to maximise the principles of energy conservation and efficiency. Whilst the NPPF (para 153) has regard to the inclusion of renewable and decentralised energy as part of a new development, it states that such features are only required where it is either feasible or viable. This policy is therefore not "consistent" with National Policy.
7.15 We therefore object to the policy in its present form. In order to ensure consistency with National policy, criteria (f) of Policy BE02 should be revised to mirror the NPPF position. Therefore, it is considered that proposed Policy BE02 is unsound.
7.16 Policy BE03: Carbon Reduction, Renewable Energy and Water Efficiency states that proposals for renewable, low carbon or decentralised energy schemes will be supported, subject to adverse cumulative and visual impacts, which cannot be satisfactorily addressed. Criteria (b) of the proposed policy sets out the minimum standards of sustainable construction and carbon reduction. It is Government policy to seek to deliver improvements to emissions from buildings through the application of building regulations. It is therefore considered that the table provided in proposed Policy BE03 is not required, and therefore this policy is "unjustified" and unsound.
7.17 Policy BE04: Establishing Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Infrastructure Network sets out that developments will be required to provide for the necessary infrastructure to meet the needs of the development, specifically stand-alone renewable energy infrastructure. The policy advises that new development of over 500 units, or where the clustering of neighbouring sites totals over 500 units, will be expected to incorporate decentralised energy infrastructure.
7.18 The supporting text refers to the need for District heating networks and the identification of Strategic allocations in the Brentwood IDP, including the Officers Meadow's masterplan area, that could provide opportunities for DH and CHP schemes as energy solutions for new development.
7.19 This policy is considered overly onerous and "unjustified" in relation to the NPPF and therefore unsound.
7.20 In order to make the policy more effective, it could set out that the delivery of renewable energy infrastructure should be required based on evidence of need and viability and a "viability assessment" (at the time planning applications are submitted/determined) - as per Policy SP04.
7.21 Policy BE08: Sustainable Drainage seeks that all developments should incorporate appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) for the disposal of surface water, in order to avoid any increase in flood risk or adverse impact on water quality. Larger sites over 1 hectare in Zone 1 must be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. Water runoff will comply with the requirements of this policy by provision of SuDS in the surface water drainage strategy. The NPPF (para 163) refers to the need for local planning authorities to ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere. Where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. This aspect of the policy is therefore considered "consistent" with the NPPF.
7.22 Given the extensive nature of the development, opportunities exist to incorporate the above the SuDs management across the site both locally and site-wide. However, the requirement for prevention if run-off for all rainfall events up to 5mm is in excess of the SuDS manual and is therefore "unjustified". Unfortunately, this therefore renders the overall Policy BE08 to be unsound.
7.23 Policy BE10: Connecting new developments to digital infrastructure seeks to support Brentwood's economic growth and productivity by improving the offer of digital infrastructure available within the Borough. Whilst planning strives to achieve the highest possible standards of construction and performance for new dwellings, Council's should not seek higher standards than Building Regulations on any other technical standards. Proposed Policy BE10 is therefore "unjustified" in light of National policy and therefore unsound.
7.24 Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure requires that development in proximity of the railway stations demonstrate how the scheme connects the surrounding walking, cycling and public transport links to the station, linking new developments with the fast high-capacity transport links into London from Shenfield and the improved linkages from the Elizabeth line. Development close to schools and early years childcare facilities should facilitate an attractive public realm that is safe for children and encourages walking and cycling to address the impacts of school run traffic, in line with ECC's Developers' Guide to Infrastructure Contributions. This aligns with the NPPF (section 9) on "Promoting Sustainable Transport". These considerations therefore appear to be "justified", in accordance with national planning policy and therefore the policy is sound.
7.25 Policy BE13: Sustainable Means of Travel and Walkable Streets and Policy BE16: Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development refers to sustainable modes of transport that should be facilitated through new developments, promoting accessibility and integration into the wider community and existing networks. Any development requiring a new road or road access, walking and cycling facilities and public transport, will be required to have regard to the adopted ECC's Development Management Policies or successor documents.
7.26 The policies seek to secure developments that are, inter-alia, designed to make necessary contributions to the improvement of existing infrastructure and provision of new infrastructure; be consistent and contribute to the implementation of the Essex County Council's Development Management Policies and include Transport Assessments and Travel Plans. This aligns with the NPPF (section 9) "Promoting Sustainable Transport" and is therefore considered "justified" and sound.
7.27 Policy BE17: Parking Standards refers to the vehicle parking requirement set out in the most up-to-date Essex Parking Standards. The NPPF (para 105) states that when setting local parking standards policies should take into account: a) the accessibility of development b) the type, mix and use of development c) the availability of and opportunities for public transport d) local car ownership levels and e) the need to ensure an adequate provision of spaces for charging plug-in and ultra-low emission vehicles. This aligns with the flexibility allowed for in Policy BE17, whereby the imposed parking standards are subject to the site's ability to minimise pressure on land and encourage the use of alternative modes of transport.
7.28 However, Policy BE12 also deals with "parking matters", but is not aligned with Policy BE17. This adds further inconsistency, in addition to Policy BE17 itself being "inconsistent" with the NPPF. It is therefore presently unsound.
7.29 Policy BE18: Green and Blue Infrastructure requires that Brentwood's existing ecological networks, open spaces, and green/blue features within the built environment are protected, planned, enhanced and managed as a part of the Borough's wider network of green and blue infrastructure. Points A-I of Policy BE18 identify the measures by which development proposals can maximise opportunities to protect and enhance green and blue infrastructure, aligning with the NPPF (section 15) "Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment".
7.30 However, it is presently unclear how any net gains/losses and any associated requirements would be measured/calculated, or the mechanism by which the Council or developer would deliver this. This is therefore both "unjustified" and "inconsistent", and therefore unsound.
7.31 Our Client largely supports the principle of Policy BE18, but it also unfortunately includes the requirement for a developer to ensure there is sufficient foul capacity within the local network before a development commences. Whilst our Client would liaise with Anglican Water, it is ultimately the Water Authority's responsibility to ensure sufficient capacity. Therefore as presently worded, the policy is "unjustified" and is unsound.
7.32 Policy BE19: Access to Nature seeks that major developers provide direct access to nature and that this provision is protected, planned, designed and managed as an integrated feature of the landscape. Developments in areas that are more than 1km walking distance from an accessible green open space should also seek opportunities to improve resident's experience and interaction with nature by means of design. The NPPF (section 8) "Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities" states that planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, this policy is therefore deemed to be "consistent" with the NPPF and sound.
7.33 Policy BE22: Open Space in New Development seeks that major developments provide functional on-site open space and/or recreational amenities, in accordance with standards set out in the Council's Open Space Standards (see Figure 5.4 Open Space Standards and Fig 5.5 Fields in Trust Children's Play Space Standards in the Reg 19 Local Plan). Maintenance Plans should be submitted at planning application stage for all new facilities provided for exercise or recreation purposes.
7.34 The Council's Open Space Standards seek proposals which meet the Fields in Trust (Guidance for Outdoor Play Space: Beyond the Six Acre Standard) minimum standards. The FiT standards relate to provision on the basis of hectares per 1,000 population generated. The Council's Open Space Standards are considered to be effective as they are based on FiT standards and are therefore "justified" and the policy is sound.
7.35 Policy BE23: Open Space, Sport and Recreational Facilities states that permissions will not be granted for the development of designated Protected Urban Open Space or Local Green Space unless it can be demonstrated that alternative and improved provision can be created, existing open space enhanced or no additional displacement within the Green Belt caused. As with Policy BE22, where appropriate all proposals will be required to comply with the Council's Open Space Standards which aim to meet those set out by FiT. It is therefore considered that policy BE22 is "justified" in line with national guidance and therefore sound.
7.36 Policy HP01: Housing Mix sets out that all new development should deliver an inclusive and accessible environment throughout. On development sites of 500 or more units, the Council will require an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). Each dwelling is to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwellings. A minimum of 5% self-build homes is to be provided, which can include custom housebuilding and provision for Specialist Accommodation, taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04 Specialist Accommodation. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
7.37 The objective of securing accessible and adaptable homes is supported, however, it is unclear as to how the "each dwelling to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless it is built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwellings" is a fair and reasonable request.
7.38 The supporting text refers to DCLG research which shows that, based on English Partnerships figures from 2011-2012, nearly 30% of households have at least one person with a long-term illness and over 3% have one or more wheelchair user. While nationally 3.3% of households have a wheelchair user, for households living in affordable housing this rises to 7.1%. The rates are also higher for older households and, given that the number of older person households in the borough is set to increase over the period to 2033, the Council seeks to ensure 5% of affordable housing development on proposals of 60 or more dwellings archives requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings.
7.39 This need for "all developments" to meet this target is not set out in the evidence or in the NPPG (referred to in the supporting text) and is therefore "unjustified" and unsound.
7.40 Policy HP03: Residential Density sets out that residential development proposals will generally be expected to achieve a net density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare net or higher. Proposals for new residential development should take a design-led approach to density which ensures schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land. Proposals for housing developments should "Make an Effective Use of Land" in line with NPPF (Section 11). This policy is therefore "consistent" with the NPPF and sound, but must provide for a degree of flexibility to allow for local circumstances.
7.41 Policy HPO4: Specialist Accommodation the Council encourages and supports proposals which contribute to the delivery of Specialist Accommodation, as referenced in the Land North of Shenfield Site allocation "other types of specialist housing (to be provided) in accordance with the Council's policy requirements". This form of accommodation includes, but is not limited to, housing for older people such as Independent Living schemes for the frail elderly.
7.42 The Council's SHMA indicates that, if occupation patterns of Specialist Residential Accommodation for older people remain at current levels, there will be a requirement for 494 additional specialist units to 2033, aligning with the requirement in the Land North of Shenfield site allocation for provision of a residential care home (a 60-bed scheme as part of the overall allocation). This policy is also "consistent" with the NPPF section 5 (para 64 b) and is therefore considered to be sound.
7.43 Policy HPO5: Affordable Housing seeks to provide a portion of affordable housing on residential developments of 11 dwellings or more or on those which have a combined gross floorspace of greater than 1,000 sq. m (gross internal area).
7.44 The affordable housing requirement relates to 35% provision in all areas of the Borough. The Council requires that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA. The affordable housing is to be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme and distributed throughout the development, so as to avoid the over concentration in one area.
7.45 Viability is referred to, but the policy does not go far enough. We would recommend that the policy includes a clause which requires a viability assessment to be submitted and considered whereby schemes are unable to meet the full affordable provision, which is not included at present. The policy is therefore "unjustified" and unsound.
7.46 Policy HP06: Standards for New Housing requires that all major residential developments meet the Government's nationally described space standard. It is considered that the standard is an appropriate tool to use when considering the provision of good housing. However, this should not be limited to major development, but should instead extend to all emerging residential development, whilst allowing for the consideration of local circumstances and site-specific conditions, in order to accord the NPPF (Section 12, Achieving Well-Designed Places). The policy is therefore "unjustified" in relation to need and viability (our emphasis) in accordance with the NPPF. The adoption of nationally described space standards is also at the discretion of the LPA and should be decided upon in a local context. The policy is therefore considered unsound.
7.47 Policy HP12: Planning for Inclusive Communities refers to the need to plan for and build inclusive environments that support communities. Proposals should provide access to good quality community spaces, services and infrastructure, encouraging social interaction, ensuring inclusivity and promoting safety. The policy is deemed "consistent" with NPPF (section 8) "Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities" which states that planning policies should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places which promote social interaction, are safe and accessible, and support healthy lifestyles. The policy is therefore considered sound.
7.48 Policy HP13: Creating Successful Places seeks that proposals meet high design standards, in order to deliver safe, inclusive, attractive and accessible places. Elements A-M of policy HP13 identify measures considered to create successful places, in accordance with section 12 of the NPPF on "Achieving Well-Designed Places". The NPPF (para 128) states that design quality should be considered throughout the evolution and assessment of individual proposals. Policy HP13 is therefore considered to be "consistent" with the NPPF and sound.
7.49 Policy HP16: Buildings Design seeks for development to be well designed and of a high quality, having regard to Development Management criteria including scale, density, layout, siting, character and appearance. This policy is considered to be "consistent" with the NPPF having particular regard to Section 12 on "Achieving Well-Designed Places" and therefore sound.
7.50 Policy PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land seeks that provision is made for 5,000 additional jobs in the Borough over the Plan period at a rate of 250 per year. NPPF Section 6 on "Building a Strong, Competitive Economy" sets out that planning policies should support economic growth, in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. The strategic allocation at Land North of Shenfield supports economic growth and creates new opportunities and is "consistent" with national guidance and is sound.
7.51 Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations highlights areas allocated by the Council for general employment and office development. Para 82 of the NPPF states that planning policies should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different employment sectors. The allocations set out in policy PC03 are informed by the wider spatial strategy, which aims to retain the Borough's character and encourage employment growth in suitable locations, in accordance with national planning policy. This policy is therefore deemed to be "consistent" with the NPPF and considered to be sound.
7.52 Policies NE01: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural Environment (inc SSSIs) and NE03: Trees, Woodland, Hedgerows (inc Local Wildlife Site, Local Nature Reserves) work to restrict development that would have a detrimental effect on, or result in the loss of, significant landscape heritage or a feature of ecological importance.
7.53 Our Client wholly supports the principles of both of these policies, albeit as presently worded, they both contain contradictory requirements: Policy NE01 (para B) states that proposals that lead to deterioration or loss of the Borough's designated and non-designated biodiversity assets will not be permitted; whereas Policy NE01 (para C) goes on to state that where adverse impacts are unavoidable they must be adequately and proportionally mitigated (ie it appears to allow for deterioration where they are unavoidable and can be suitably mitigated).
7.54 Policy NE03 (para A) contains a similar contradictory approach to the provisions of the remainder of the policy - as with Policy NE01.
7.55 In the light of this both Policy NE01 and Policy NE03 are not inconsistent with each other, they are also "inconsistent" with National policy, "unjustified" and therefore unsound.
7.56 Policy NE05: Air Quality seeks to restrict development, which would directly or indirectly, impact air quality within the Borough. Measures to offset or mitigate those impacts are introduced as part of proposals to ensure that receptors would not be subject to unacceptable risk as a result of poor air quality. This policy is "consistent" with the objectives of the NPPF (para 181) and is therefore considered sound.
7.57 Policy NE06: Flood Risk requires that development avoid flood risk to people and property, managing any residual risk and taking account of the impacts of climate change. Developments should be located in areas with the lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zones 1 & 2). Where development is located within Flood Zone 3, the Exception Test will apply.
7.58 The NPPF (section 14) "Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change" states that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at the highest risk. The majority of Policy NE06 therefore aligns with National guidance and therefore mostly sound. However, and as presently worded, it suggests tat applicants may be obligated to set aside land to provide flood management to benefit areas outside of that development. This is unduly onerous, inconsistent with National policy and therefore unsound.
7.59 Similarly, the entirety of a development area does not need to remain operational at times of flood (such as access roads), if there is an alternative safe means of escape that is provided. Subsection c) of Policy NE06 is therefore not justified and also unsound.
7.60 Policy NE09: Green Belt seeks that the Metropolitan Green Belt within Brentwood Borough will be preserved from inappropriate development so that it continues to main openness and serve key functions. Policy NE09 states that all development proposals within the Green Belt will be considered in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the NPPF on "Protecting Green Belt Land". It is therefore considered that policy NE09 is "justified" and sound, in the light of national policy.
7.61 Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt states that sites allocated to meet housing need, within the Green Belt, will be expected to provide significant community benefits. These are the "exceptional circumstances" for sites to be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place, providing new defensible boundaries and protecting the open countryside. The NPPF (para 138) states that, where it has been concluded necessary to release Green Belt land for development, plans should give first consideration to land which has been previously-developed and/or is well-served by public transport.
7.62 The allocated "Officer's Meadow" site provides opportunities for sustainable development and transport modes to be maximised, with its close proximity to Shenfield railway station, in accordance with National policy, leading to the consideration of Policy NE13 as "consistent" with the NPPF and sound.
7.63 The overall approach within the Development Management related policies is supported, however amendments to policy/Appendices of Local Plan is recommended in places as set out above. This would ensure robustness in terms of delivering a sound Local Plan that is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national planning policy.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 The Regulation 19 "Pre-Submission Local Plan" consultation document is supported. These representations fully support the allocation of Land North of Shenfield, which includes our Client's land at "Officer's Meadow". These representations focus mostly on land within our Client's control and are supported by a series of accompanying technical reports that support the proposed allocation.
8.2 Our Client supports the wider and comprehensive development of Policy RO3: Land North of Shenfield, which could ultimately for circa 825 dwellings (inc affordable provision).
8.3 Specifically, the land controlled by our Client represents the largest area of land within Policy RO3 and is largely supportive of the policy requirements set out in the Local Plan. Our Client is keen to work closely with the Borough Council and adjoining landowners to provide a comprehensive approach to development, and our Client's elements would comprise:
* Circa 510 dwellings (inc. Affordable provision)
* A new Local Centre, inc. potential healthcare;
* A 60-bed care home
* Significant areas of "Green" and "Blue" Infrastructure;
* Other community facilities, inc. sports provision.
8.4 These representations have also set out our Client's support of working closely with the adjoining Shenfield High School to provide for enhanced educational facilities. This would be in the form of funding towards on-site Primary provision to help create a "through-school", plus financial contributions to existing secondary provision (if required).
8.5 We would welcome the opportunity of discussing our concerns, with suggested amendments with BBC and ECC Officers at the earliest opportunity.
8.6 Subject to a number of modifications as recommended in this report, we consider the Local Plan to be largely sound in accordance with the NPPF.

LLLP consider that policy SP01 requires modification at D(a) and D(d) to ensure that it is positively framed and that the approach to securing sustainable development accords with the NPPF and is more flexible.

Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with Section 4, Policy SP01: Sustainable
Development.
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
4. Policy SP01 sets the overall approach and criteria for achieving sustainable
development in the Borough. LLLP supports the overall approach and intention of
the policy but has specific concerns with respect to criterion point D.
Criterion D
5. Point D of Policy SP01 states that development will be supported where it
contributes towards delivering the Strategic Objectives and meets 11 specific
criteria. LLLP have concerns about D(a) and D(d) as follows.
Criterion D(a)
6. Criterion D(a) states that development will be supported where it preserves and
enhances the character and settlement setting of the Borough's villages.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
2
7. As drafted the criterion appears to be overly prescriptive. "Preservation" of the
character and settlement setting is inflexible and by definition anticipates that there
is no change to the existing situation. The spatial strategy and growth proposals set
out in the Plan will, inevitably, lead to change to the character and setting of
settlements (including towns, villages and the countryside).
8. The NPPF does not require the preservation of character and setting and is couched
in more positive terms, particularly at paragraph 170 which seeks to inter alia: (a)
protect and enhance valued landscapes; and (b) recognise the intrinsic character
and beauty of the countryside.
Criterion D(d)
9. Criterion D(d) seeks to ensure that the transport network can satisfactorily
accommodate the travel demand generated and that traffic generation would not
give rise to adverse highway conditions or highway safety concerns or an
unacceptable loss of amenity.
10. LLLP consider that the phrasing of criterion D(d) is not consistent with the NPPF at
paragraph 102(d). This paragraph of the NPPF confirms that the environmental
impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure should be identified and assessed and
that appropriate opportunities for avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects are
identified.
11. Criterion D(d) of Policy SP01 makes no reference to the ability of development
schemes and proposals to mitigate any adverse effects that may be identified. The
policy wording needs to reflect the potential for adverse highways conditions to be
mitigated through appropriate interventions such as contributions to infrastructure
improvements
Conclusions
12. LLLP object to Policy SP01. The policy is not sound as it is not:
* Consistent with the NPPF - for the reasons identified in this representation,
Policy SP01 is not consistent with the NPPF and is considered to be too
prescriptive with respect to Criterion D(a) and Criterion D(d). The policy is
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
3
not positively framed for these criteria and would be overly restrictive for the
effective consideration of future development proposals.
Modifications Required
13. LLLP consider that policy SP01 requires modification at D(a) and D(d) to ensure that
it is positively framed and that the approach to securing sustainable development
accords with the NPPF and is more flexible.

Iceni Projects Limited ('Iceni') are appointed by Ford Motor Company ('Ford' / our 'Client') to advise on planning matters associated with its ownership and commercial interests at Eagle Way, Warley, Brentwood (the 'Site') within the administrative area of Brentwood Borough Council ('BBC'). Accordingly, Iceni has been instructed by Ford to prepare and submit written representations to the BBC New Local Plan, Pre-submission Draft consultation (2019) (referred to herein as 'PSD'). On behalf of our Client, we welcome the opportunity to comment on PSD which was published for consultation on the 5th February 2019. This is the final stage of consultation on the new Local Plan, following which the plan will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for independent examination. We therefore note that this stage of consultation is inviting comments on the soundness of the document in line with the National Planning Policy Framework ('NPPF') (2018) - including whether the plan has been positively prepared, is justified, effective and consistent with national planning policy. The PSD consultation follows two previous consultations on the Local Plan, including the Call for Sites in 2016 and Preferred Site Allocations ('PSA') consultation in 2018. As BBC Officers will be aware, Ford have continued to actively engage in the preparation of the local plan with BBC - having submitted representations to all previous stages of consultation; supporting the allocation of the Site for housing. In this regard, Ford's previous representations have demonstrated that the Site represents a highly suitable and available Site for such development early in the plan period (particularly given the recent announcement regarding a change in operational requirements moving forwards) which should be prioritised given its brownfield nature. Within the PSD consultation version of the new Local Plan, our Client is supportive of the principle of the Site's allocation for residential development under Draft Policy RO4 and RO5: 'Ford Headquarters and the Council Depot'. However, and in accordance with the tests of soundness in the NPPF (2018) - which the PSD consultation is indeed specifically seeking comments on, our Client wishes to object to the designation of 2 hectares ('ha') of employment land on the southern portion of the Ford Site (RO4) as specifically referenced under Draft Figure 7.6 and Draft Policy PCO3 in addition to the provision of specialist accommodation and self-build housing - in the absence of sufficient, supporting evidence to justify this. At this stage, our Client therefore considers the emerging Local Plan to be unsound and unjustified in the absence of a robust strategy, which should be based on proportionate evidence contrary to the NPPF Paragraph 35 and the overarching objective of enabling the delivery of sustainable development. Our Client also wishes to raise comments on other aspects of the PSD and Draft policies (as detailed in Section 3 of this representation submission); respectfully requesting that this is reviewed by BBC ahead of its submission to the Planning Inspector for examination. We would also welcome
discussing this submission in further detail with officers at the earliest possible convenience. In accordance with the requirements of the PSD consultation, and in order to inform this submission, the following documents have been submitted on behalf of our Client: * BBC completed Consultation Form; and * Written representations statement (this report which should be read in tandem with the above). This representation is submitted in line with the consultation deadline of 19th March 2019. The Site Location and Surroundings: The Site comprises 8.51 hectares (21.03 acres) of land located within Warley, forming the southern
edge of the Brentwood settlement boundary. This is a primary location for housing growth within both the adopted and PSD version of the emerging Local Plan - recognising its urbanised location within an existing settlement boundary. The Site is located approximately 1.36km south of Brentwood Train Station and 2.5km southeast of Junction 28 of the M25 Motorway. The Site was originally developed for military purposes before being occupied by Ford as their European headquarters in the 1950s. Whilst the head office function has since been relocated to Cologne, Germany, the Site has remained in use by Ford as a central office for its UK services. However, Ford have recently announced that the Site will not continue to have an operational function as offices for the company moving forwards (due to a change in operational requirements). As such, it now represents a pivotal strategic opportunity within the PSD as a highly deliverable and available Site for new housing. Eagle Way runs east-west through the Site, dividing it into two parcels of land, as outlined below: * 'The northern parcel' - 1.37 hectares (3.39 acres) of land to the north of Eagle Way, currently utilised for staff car parking. A bus station is located on The Drive which runs along the western boundary, with Eagle Way running along the southern boundary of the northern parcel. To the north there is BBC owned land which is currently being utilised as additional car parking by Ford (on a lease agreement), as well as the highways depot and auto garage known as 'Council Depot.' 'The southern parcel' - 7.14 hectares (17.64 acres) of land to the south of Eagle Way where the main office building is located. The 6-7 storey office building has a NIA of 43,664 sq.m (470,000 sq.ft.), together with an ancillary data centre building, car parking and landscaping. Notably, the southern parcel includes an area of Green Belt Land along the eastern edge (comprising the Warley Gap) which is not proposed for any development within the PSD. The southern parcel is bounded by woodland, Clive Road to the west, Eagle Way to the north and woodland to the east. The area surrounding Site is predominantly characterised by residential uses, in addition to Marillac nursing home (to the east) and a local centre comprising retail and commercial uses to the west. Existing Planning Policy - Designations: In terms of adopted planning policy, the Site is currently subject to employment land use designations as defined by the BBC Replacement Local Plan (2005). Land to the north of Eagle Way is designated for 'general employment', and the land to the south of Eagle Way is designated as 'office'. A small portion of the southern parcel of the Site also falls within the Green Belt, along its eastern edge - which is not proposed for any form of development within the emerging PSD. In terms of heritage, there are Grade II listed buildings located outside of the site to the west including: The Royal Essex Regiment and Royal Anglian Regiment Headquarters building and Chapel. Site Ownership: Ford is the freehold owner of the Site. Ford also occupy an additional area to the north, which is currently owned by BBC and leased to Ford as car parking (comprising part of Draft allocation RO5 within the PSD). A plan highlighting the ownership boundary is included at Appendix A1. Formal Response to PSD Consultation: The following provides a formal consultation response on behalf of our Client to the PSD consultation. Specifically, this representation relates to the 'soundness' of the PSD - commenting on individual Draft policies within the consultation document on this basis (in accordance with the PSD Consultation Form Section B). Draft Policy R04 and R05: Ford Headquarters and Council Depot: Ford notes that the current PSD includes the Warley Site as a 'Strategic Housing Allocation' with the Council Depot, Warley under Draft policy allocation RO4 and RO5 - Ford Headquarters and Council Depot, which are collectively allocated for residential development for around 473 new homes anticipated to be delivered between 2024/25 and 2032/33 (within years 9-17 of the plan period). Notably, the Draft allocation also states that 'development proposals should consider the following': * The provision of a 60-bed residential care home as part of the overall allocation; * Provision for 5% self-build and custom build across the entire allocation; and * Provision of 2ha of land for employment purposes (specifically allocated on land south of Eagle Way with reference to Figure 7.2). Supporting Appendix 2 (Site Allocations) provides two separate plans for allocation RO4 ('land south of Eagle Way'; comprising the main Ford office building) and RO5 ('land north of Eagle Way; comprising the additional car parking area for Ford and the Council Depot) setting out that the sites have a collective site area of 9.4ha - of which 8ha is considered developable: * RO4 (south of Eagle Way) - 5.34ha of which 4.5ha developable. * RO5 (north of Eagle Way) - 4.06ha of which 3.5ha developable. Ford wishes to voice support in principle for the Draft allocation in the PSD for future residential development - including up to 350 new dwellings on the Ford owned land (as per our Clients previous representations to the PSA consultation and as demonstrated as deliverable within the 'Garden in the Woods' conceptual masterplan; as prepared by Iceni Design). This is highlighted with specific regards to the Site's situation within the Brentwood / Urban Area settlement boundary; comprising of previously developed brownfield land whereby the NPPF (2018) and PSD (2019) acknowledges that housing growth should be directed as a matter of priority in promoting sustainable development (providing a sound policy basis under the test of soundness within the NPPF). The need for BBC to identify additional land for housing is also required in order to address cross-boundary pressures such as London's future housing growth, which has been exemplified within relevant London Plan EiP hearing sessions. In this context, the Mayor of London has confirmed that local planning authorities within the wider south east, where the housing market is influenced by that of London should be working collaboratively with the GLA to significantly boost the supply of housing and ensure that Local Plans meet full objectively assessed needs. The arrival of Crossrail at Brentwood and Shenfield further exemplifies this requirement. This will undoubtedly bring even greater connections to central London, inevitably resulting in an increase in people living in the local area. This places further pressure on land for residential development, with the Site at Warley providing a key brownfield opportunity for much needed new housing. However, and as per our Clients previous formal response to the PSA consultation in May 2017, Ford request that the Draft allocation is revised to reflect the Ford owned land being available and deliverable earlier in the plan period - notably, 1-5 years versus the 9-17 years currently referenced within the PSD under the collective allocation with the Council Depot. This will help to deliver a significant degree of Brentwood's housing requirement in the short term (in line with the key objective of the NPPF with regards to boosting the supply of housing without delay). In this regard, it is assumed that the collective allocation has been put forward later in BBC's housing trajectory - to reflect the timescales anticipated for the Council owned Depot to be relocated. On this basis, our Client contends that the Ford owned land should be treated separately, with the Draft allocation revised to reflect the earlier timescales for housing delivery (which has indeed been evidenced to BBC through Ford's original Call for Sites submission in addition to ongoing, open dialogue with officers following Ford's announcement regarding the rationalisation of the business and subsequent vacation of the Site later this year). In this context, we wish to emphasise that the Ford Warley Site is a highly deliverable and available site for housing development, with realistic prospects that this will be delivered within the early phases of the plan period. Conversely, the Depot site is currently unavailable with an existing occupier, whereby we understand that BBC as the landowner have made no decisions regarding the site in terms of alternative provision. The approach to separating the sites within the Plan, will ensure that the early delivery of the Ford land for much needed housing is not unduly jeopardised (in accordance with the HELAA 2018, which indicated that new housing in the Borough would be brought forward on brownfield sites within the early years of the Plan). Please also see detailed comments made to Draft Policy SP02. Ford also wishes to object to the retention of 2ha of employment floorspace specifically at the land south of Eagle Way (i.e. the main Ford site; as referenced in Draft Figure 7.2 and Appendix 2) - in the absence of robust evidence to justify this, in tandem with acknowledging that the Site is no longer suitable for such uses (with the Ford site arguably being bespoke and an anomaly within the Borough; whereby the site's location would not be an attractive location for modern commercial investment). It is also apparent that BBC actually have a surplus of employment supply over the plan period, including at other more suitable sites across the Borough, whereby there is no logical or sound reasoning for the retention of 2ha of employment floorspace at the main Ford site (please also see comments made under Draft Policy PC03 'Employment Allocations' for full details / response on this matter). In a similar context, Ford also wishes to challenge the inclusion of a 60-bed care home and 5% custom build housing across the wider RO4 and RO5 Draft allocation - in the absence of any sound justification for this (contrary to the NPPF with regards to the requirement for planning policies to be underpinned by proportionate evidence) (please also see comments made under Draft Policy HP01 'Housing Mix' and HP04 'Specialist Accommodation' for full details / response on this matter). Whilst Ford welcomes the update to the PSD with regards to the correct site areas for Draft allocations RO4 and RO5 (under Appendix 2), as per our Client's comments to the PSA consultation (enclosed at Appendix A3 for reference), Ford wish to highlight that it is not possible to feasibility accommodate the amount of development currently included across the collective allocation - in the form which the market demands, whereby the provision of a care home and 2ha of employment floorspace significantly reduces the net developable area and ability to deliver up to 350 news homes on the Ford owned land (taking account of open space and infrastructure requirements; as demonstrated within the Garden in the Woods Conceptual Masterplan). This would result in a potential dwelling density that is wholly inappropriate for this type of location and would not respond at all well to the market demand for a housing-led development. As such, and for the reasons specifically raised under Draft Policy PCO3 and HP04 Ford wishes to object to the inclusion of these additional land uses in the interests of ensuring that the Site can be maximised for much needed housing development. To insist on retaining these alternative uses would significantly impact upon the ability and rate at which new housing could be delivered on this site, which would work against other objectives and policies in the Plan which are seeking early years delivery of housing on PDL. Draft Policy SP01: Sustainable Development: Ford wishes to voice support for the stated positive approach to the presumption in favour of sustainable development under Draft Policy SP01, in line with the NPPF (2018). In this regard, it is noted that the purpose of the planning system is to act positively to contribute to the achievement of this overarching objective. Draft Policy SP01 also provides a commitment from BBC to always work 'proactively with applicants to find solutions which mean that proposals for sustainable development can be approved wherever appropriate, and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.' Again, this is welcomed by our Client and is considered a sound approach to plan and decision making (in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 12) which we would strongly urge BBC to ensure is underpinned by all other aspects of the new Local Plan in order for it to be sound. Spatial Development Strategy - Draft Paragraph 3.23: Ford wishes to voice support for the spatial strategy set out within the PSD, under Draft Paragraph 3.23, which seeks to prioritise brownfield sites wherever suitable, making efficient use of land in urban areas. In this regard, Ford wishes to highlight the suitability of the land at Eagle Way for residential development in supporting this endeavour - which is located within the established urban neighbourhood of Warley (recognised as being the priority settlement for housing growth). As such, the delivery of housing at the Ford site should be viewed as a vital, and priority opportunity for BBC in recognising that the Borough is heavily constrained by Green Belt (which makes up 89% of the Borough area), whereby this has made it challenging for BBC to fully meet its development needs. Our Client therefore contends that this approach is sound but should be consistently reflected in other aspects of the Plan (including the Draft allocation for the Ford site as discussed at Paragraph 3.2 of these representations). Draft Policy SP02: Managing Growth - The Government has introduced a new standardised methodology for calculating local housing need in line with the NPPF (2018). This is based on 2014 household projections published by the ONS. The NPPF (2018) places a much greater emphasis on seeking to meet objectively assessed needs than previous national policy - recognising that there are several significant negative socio-economic consequences that result from a failure to meet housing needs. This includes reducing access to housing, increasing inequality and housing market instability. One of the most significant impacts of a lack of housing supply is to reduce affordability, thereby increasing the number of concealed households and increasing the proportion of income required to rent. It is noted that the current PSD (Draft Policy SP02) makes provision for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the Borough over the plan period 2016-2033 at an annual rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033. This approach adopts a stepped trajectory; resulting in the backloading of housing delivery beyond 2023 which we understand is in part due to a high proportion of Draft designated GB edge of settlement sites not being available for development until later in the plan period. Whilst our Client supports BBC's ascertain to direct housing growth to allocated sites in highly accessible locations along the transit/growth corridor (including the Ford Site) (as referenced under Draft Policy SP02 B), our Client considers that the starting point for examination of the Plan should be that a straight, rather than stepped trajectory should be used - to avert a significant, historic under-delivery of housing to persist (acknowledging that BBC are continuing to under-supply against its housing requirement until at least 2022/3). Whilst we do not consider that the principle of a stepped trajectory is justified, if this is accepted, we consider that a higher annual rate of housing delivery over the five-year period to 2023 should be tested. Iceni note that the current requirement for 310 dpa would fall below even the projected level of household growth. Indeed, the SHMA (2018) sets out that BBC has an uncapped need of 365 homes per year, reduced to 350 once a 40% cap is applied. The SHMA has pragmatically advised that BBC still needs to plan for at least 380 dpa as a minimum. Accordingly, we believe that BBC should take a rational position on this and plan for a higher annual housing target leading up to 2023 to ensure that a robust strategy is adopted (in line with the test of soundness). Notwithstanding, Ford encourages BBC to review the OAN figure as the Local Plan progresses towards examination to ensure that the housing target is adequately reflected. Housing Trajectory: In light of comments raised above (in addition to our Client's comments to Draft Policy RO4 and RO5), we contend that the housing trajectory referenced within Appendix 1 of the PSD should be reviewed and adjusted to recognise that the Ford Warley site (both the northern and southern parcel) can be delivered earlier in the plan period (1-5 years versus the 9-17 years as currently drafted), irrespective and in isolation of the Council Depot - which our Client has indeed raised in both previous rounds of consultation on the local plan (including the Call for Sites and PSA). Indeed, and as BBC officers are aware, Ford will be vacating the Warley Site in 2019, with Conceptual masterplanning already undertaken and submitted to BBC; demonstrating the deliverability and suitability of the Site for a significant quantum of residential development on the Site (please refer to 'Garden in the Woods' Conceptual Masterplan at Appendix A2; as submitted to BBC in May 2017 as part of the Call for Sites consultation). Further to ongoing dialogue with BBC, our Client also understands that the timescales for bringing forward the Council Depot for housing (which is still operational) are currently unknown at this stage, whereby the early delivery of the Ford site for housing should not be precluded on this basis. As such, our Client contends that the PSD as currently drafted, is contrary to the Governments ambitions to deliver 300,000 new homes by the mid-2020s nationally - ignoring the availability and deliverability of a significant proportion of housing at the Ford site, early in the plan period in providing for much needed housing for the Borough as soon as possible, at a sustainable brownfield location. In this regard, it is considered that the PSD is unsound on this basis and should be revised prior to being submitted for examination by BBC. Draft Policy SP06: Effective Delivery of Development: Our Client notes that Draft Policy SP06 is designed to ensure that a collaborative and participatory approach is taken when working up proposals. Ford are broadly supportive of this policy position, understanding the importance of comprehensive masterplanning to inform strategic site delivery. However, our Client wishes to note that such exercises should not inhibit the ability of individually owned sites to come forward for development. This is specifically referenced with regards to the Council Depot currently being included under the wider allocation for the Ford site, which we understand is not anticipated to be available for redevelopment until later in the plan period. As such, whilst Ford welcomes open and collaborative discussions regarding the wider allocation, and indeed the masterplan works to date have shown how future connections could be made to the Depot site; in tandem with how development could be proposed so as not to prejudice the development of either site, the early delivery of housing on the Ford owned land should not be prejudiced by delays in the decision-making process with regards to the Depot (see also comments under Draft Policy RO4 and RO5). It is considered that this would go against the premise of the overarching objective of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF (2018) Paragraph 59 in terms of the delivery of sustainable development and ensuring the supply of homes without unnecessary delay. Draft Policy HP01 Housing Mix (varied types and tenures): Ford supports the intentions of Draft Policy HP01 in seeking to ensure that residential development proposals deliver housing in a way that contributes to the rebalancing of the housing stock; ensuring it reflects the recognised needs of existing and future communities. This includes providing a mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures, relevant to the context of each site. Self-Build and Specialist Accommodation Threshold: Notwithstanding the above, our Client notes that the threshold for requiring a minimum of 5% self-build homes (which can include custom housebuilding and provision for specialist accommodation; see comments also made to Draft Policy HP04) is set at 500 or more dwellings. However, this threshold does not appear to have been applied to Draft allocations RO4 and RO5, which includes a requirement for both custom build housing and specialist accommodation across the wider allocation, despite having a total housing yield of 473 units across the Draft allocation - i.e. under the 500-unit threshold. Accordingly, our Client urges BBC to review this and requests that Draft allocation RO4 and RO5 is revised to remove this requirement based on the threshold set under Draft Policy HP01. At present, it is considered that there is a lack of evidence to justify this policy position, rendering the PSD unsound on this basis. Draft Policy HP03 - Residential Density: Ford welcomes Draft Policy HP03, which aims to ensure efficient use of the boroughs land whilst promoting a design-led approach to density which ensures schemes are sympathetic to local character and context. The supporting text states efficient land use is essential in a borough like Brentwood where land is scarce and enables new homes to be provided without encroaching on the countryside. This stresses the importance of delivering new housing on previously developed sites. Draft Policy HP05 - Affordable Housing: We fully appreciate that there is a significant need for affordable housing in Brentwood Borough, with 35% affordable applied to major residential schemes. Ford are aware that this level of affordable housing will likely be applied as part of any future planning application for the site, however this will be subject to scheme viability. BBC have recognised this approach, outlining that they will consider this where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered. This approach is welcomed by our Client and is considered to form a sound basis for negotiating affordable housing on a site-by-site basis (in line with NPPF Paragraph 62). Draft Policy PC03 - Employment Allocations: Ford notes that Draft Figure 7.6 and Appendix 2 of the PSD includes Part of allocation RO4 - 'Ford offices Eagle Way' (southern parcel of the Ford owned land) as an Existing Employment Site, whereby 2ha of land is proposed to be retained for employment purposes. However, there is no further evidence and/or explanation provided for this designation, which our Client indeed questioned and requested within our previous representations to the PSA consultation. Further, Draft Figure 7.5 'Employment Land Need' of the PSD outlines an employment land requirement of between 33.76ha and 45.96ha (taking account of four growth scenarios referenced under Draft Figure 7.4; as derived from the supporting Economic Future Report ['EFR'] January 2018). The EFR states that there is a pipeline supply of employment space in the Borough totalling 111.3ha. This includes 47.4ha of new employment allocations, 41.0ha of existing employment allocations, and 22.9 ha of existing employment sites previously unallocated. When subtracting the employment land requirements from BBC's new employment land supply there is a surplus in the range of between 21.4 ha and 33.7 ha (which is indeed recognised by BBC under Draft Paragraph 7.20 'exceeding requirements'). As such, it is highlighted that with the new employment allocations alone, BBC appear to have more than supply of employment land to meet its overall forecast needs over the plan period - questioning the requirement to retain 2ha of employment floorspace at the Ford site (whereby there appears to be very limited, or indeed no market demand for such space with no real planning basis for the 2ha figure referenced). Accordingly, it is anticipated that the new supply through the 'Proposed Allocations' should sufficiently compensate for the full release of the Ford site for residential with the Draft allocation for the Site revised accordingly including the removal for the requirement for 2ha of employment land. Ford also wishes to emphasise that the existing offices at Eagle Way were designed specifically for Ford and are bespoke for the operational and commercial requirements of Ford. It is therefore very unlikely that the Site could continue to support large-scale, modern employment uses of such a scale. It is also considered that the distance from Brentwood and Shenfield town centres and train stations would not be an attractive location for commercial investment - acknowledging that typically businesses requiring commercial properties of this size today, would pursue sites within close proximity of strategic infrastructure, trunk roads and more extensive local facilities and services. As such, and in light of current national policy parameters which specifically seek to promote sustainable forms of development, Ford wishes to object to the retention of employment uses at the Site - acknowledging that such a use is not considered an appropriate, or viable use of the Site in the future (contrary to the NPPF 2018). Ford further acknowledges that whilst there will be a requirement for commercial space in the Borough, land for residential development is critical in order to relieve any additional pressures on the Borough's Green Belt - with the Site representing an ideal opportunity for maximising residential development (including much needed family accommodation) which should be recognised under the Draft site allocation versus being restricted. In light of the above, and in the absence of robust evidence, Ford wishes to object to the provision of any level of employment use at the Site - rendering the PSD, Draft Policy PC03 and allocation RO4 and RO5 unsound on these grounds. Our Client therefore respectfully requests that the Site is removed from the listed 'Existing Employment Allocations' under Draft Figure 7.6. We also note that no reference is made to the re-provision of the Council Depot which we understand is likely to be retained for employment purposes into the early years of the plan period (given its current operational status). Draft Policy HP04 - Specialist Accommodation: Ford acknowledges that BBC are encouraging proposals to contribute to the delivery of Specialist Accommodation and are broadly supporting of Draft Policy HP04 in terms of providing such facilities where there is a 'demonstratable established local community need'. Ford recognises that the SHMA Part 2 (2016) identifies that there is likely to be an additional need for 494 specialist units over the next 20 years, including 466 units as sheltered housing and 28 extra-care units (albeit no distinction is made between them within the Draft policy wording, with no further assessment having been undertaken in recent years with regards to local requirements). Whilst Ford is supportive of BBC seeking to accommodate such facilities across the Borough, we note that there is currently a lack of evidence (including a detailed assessment of local community need) to fully justify accommodating such a use under Draft allocation RO4 and RO5, alongside residential. Indeed, we understand that that this requirement has only been included in response to a likely strategic-need for age friendly housing, but with no local analysis and/or basis to support this. Accordingly, and similarly to Ford's comments regarding the retention of employment uses at the Site, Ford wishes to highlight that due to the Site's location on the edge of Warley, it is considered that the Site does not represent the most suitable location for specialist care accommodation, with no analysis having been undertaken by BBC to demonstrate how the site is best placed to serve older people and their specialist needs. This goes to the heart of the NPPF (2018) test of soundness, in terms of the requirement for policies within local plans to be based on proportionate evidence. Further, Ford's commercial advisors CBRE have undertaken a recent analysis of local demand and supply within the surrounding Site area (Pulse Report) whereby this has identified that there is an oversupply of bed spaces across a variety of care spectrums (including a c.200 bed space oversupply within a 5-mile radius and c.1,000 within a 3 mile radius) - signifying a lack of need within the local area; whereby the Draft allocation would likely result in an un-viable future use (contrary to the parameters of sustainable development set out within the NPPF). As such, we would strongly urge BBC to revise the Draft allocation for the Site accordingly - recognising that it is most suitable for residential use only. Summary: On behalf of Ford, thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the BBC PSD consultation document. As noted above, Ford is broadly supportive of the Draft allocation of its Site for housing, subject to further discussions with BBC Officers regarding the proposed additional land uses and development capacity - with sufficient evidence requested to justify the former, prior to the Local Plan being submitted for examination (to ensure that it is sound and legally compliant, in accordance with the NPPF 2018). We trust that the enclosed is clear, but please do not hesitate to contact Andrew Gale or Lucy Howes should you require any additional information. We would welcome discussing these representations with BBC at the earliest possible opportunity and to be kept informed of progress to the next stages of local plan preparation.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

1. There are several other developments taking place in the North of the Borough in addition to those proposed for Blackmore. No consideration has been taken in respect of these additional developments which if taken into account could well fulfil the local housing requirements without building on Green Belt Land.
2. From the discussions at a recent meeting with council representatives they were not fully aware f these other developments for example in the region of 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane which will also further add to the unacceptable impact of the village
3. The planning officers have not had sufficient detailed dialogue with other local boroughs to ensure that proposals take into account all local development and options for example the development taking place in the Fyfield Road out of Ongar. I cannot accept that Brentwood Council acts independently without due consideration to all local developments that would impact on what is a huge impact which cannot be sustained by Blackmore Village.
4. The principle of residential development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong - Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure and I would point out the current challenges we face living here:
* One village shop/Post Office with very restricted parking
* A Doctors surgery whereby I genuinely hope I do not need to request urgent care. If you want any form of response you have to continuously dial repeatedly to get assistance - comments on the website page highlights this.
* The local village school has very limited places and resources which was put under further pressure due to a large unapproved travelling community site with some 20-30 caravans and families is also impacting on the village resources available.
5. Red Rose Lane itself is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic movements. This lane is regularly used currently by large agricultural vehicles which have to by-pass the village due to their size. They are large "Tracked" Tractors units towing large trailers which take up the full width of the lane and this closes the road to oncoming traffic. If they meet any vehicles coming the other way have to reverse to one of two temporary "Passing Places". Additionally large school buses use this lane again creating serious safety risks. The risk of a further 70-80 vehicles accessing the planned site and village early and late periods has simply not been fully considered and will not be feasible.

Red Rose Lane regularly floods with the water coming down Nine Ashes Road like a river and into the lane. The ditches and limited drainage near to the junction simply cannot cope and a large area is regularly left under water during the winter months. Flooding has increasingly become an issue in recent years and has now started to erode the lane at the front of our house. This will also further impact the flooding risk in the village which has been an increasing problem.

I would also add that the recent and what I would say "convenient" excessive cutting back of the bushes and trees on either side will further contribute to the flooding risk this during winter months due to the foliage now lying in the verge and ditches.

Due to the above access on/off of Red Rose Lane is simply not a viable prospect and the width of the road restricts this.

6. As a local resident I find the whole review and consultation process has been carried out in an open transparent or logical way which I would have expected if due legal process had been followed. At the initial consultations meeting so many questions were asked that the persons present could not answer and it was only when challenged by our community that further discussions took place to fully explain what was being proposed. At the last meeting we challenged the council planners in respect of other options both in and around the village which they had not taken into consideration.
7. Brentwood Council has simply not demonstrated that they have taken into account other Brownfield sites that are available which surely must take priority over the development of Green Belt Lane between Red Rose Lane and Blackmore Village.
8. No housing needs survey has been carried out by the council to justify why Blackmore has been included in the Local Development Plan and they have failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other (allocated) sites.
9. Blackmore has been "singled out" because there are more suitable locations for example further urban extension to Brentwood whereby there would be sufficient resources to sustain expansion - and the locations in Blackmore do not promote sustainable development.
The current proposed plan is simply not viable as all the options have not been investigated.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

1. There are several other developments taking place in the North of the Borough in addition to those proposed for Blackmore. No consideration has been taken in respect of these additional developments which if taken into account could well fulfil the local housing requirements without building on Green Belt Land.
2. From the discussions at a recent meeting with council representatives they were not fully aware f these other developments for example in the region of 30 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall Lane which will also further add to the unacceptable impact of the village
3. The planning officers have not had sufficient detailed dialogue with other local boroughs to ensure that proposals take into account all local development and options for example the development taking place in the Fyfield Road out of Ongar. I cannot accept that Brentwood Council acts independently without due consideration to all local developments that would impact on what is a huge impact which cannot be sustained by Blackmore Village.
4. The principle of residential development off of Red Rose Lane is wrong - Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure and I would point out the current challenges we face living here:
* One village shop/Post Office with very restricted parking
* A Doctors surgery whereby I genuinely hope I do not need to request urgent care. If you want any form of response you have to continuously dial repeatedly to get assistance - comments on the website page highlights this.
* The local village school has very limited places and resources which was put under further pressure due to a large unapproved travelling community site with some 20-30 caravans and families is also impacting on the village resources available.
5. Red Rose Lane itself is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic movements. This lane is regularly used currently by large agricultural vehicles which have to by-pass the village due to their size. They are large "Tracked" Tractors units towing large trailers which take up the full width of the lane and this closes the road to oncoming traffic. If they meet any vehicles coming the other way have to reverse to one of two temporary "Passing Places". Additionally large school buses use this lane again creating serious safety risks. The risk of a further 70-80 vehicles accessing the planned site and village early and late periods has simply not been fully considered and will not be feasible.

Red Rose Lane regularly floods with the water coming down Nine Ashes Road like a river and into the lane. The ditches and limited drainage near to the junction simply cannot cope and a large area is regularly left under water during the winter months. Flooding has increasingly become an issue in recent years and has now started to erode the lane at the front of our house. This will also further impact the flooding risk in the village which has been an increasing problem.

I would also add that the recent and what I would say "convenient" excessive cutting back of the bushes and trees on either side will further contribute to the flooding risk this during winter months due to the foliage now lying in the verge and ditches.

Due to the above access on/off of Red Rose Lane is simply not a viable prospect and the width of the road restricts this.

6. As a local resident I find the whole review and consultation process has been carried out in an open transparent or logical way which I would have expected if due legal process had been followed. At the initial consultations meeting so many questions were asked that the persons present could not answer and it was only when challenged by our community that further discussions took place to fully explain what was being proposed. At the last meeting we challenged the council planners in respect of other options both in and around the village which they had not taken into consideration.
7. Brentwood Council has simply not demonstrated that they have taken into account other Brownfield sites that are available which surely must take priority over the development of Green Belt Lane between Red Rose Lane and Blackmore Village.
8. No housing needs survey has been carried out by the council to justify why Blackmore has been included in the Local Development Plan and they have failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other (allocated) sites.
9. Blackmore has been "singled out" because there are more suitable locations for example further urban extension to Brentwood whereby there would be sufficient resources to sustain expansion - and the locations in Blackmore do not promote sustainable development.
The current proposed plan is simply not viable as all the options have not been investigated.