Policy SP02, Managing Growth (page 50) & Figure 4.2 (page 51)
A modification to Policy SP02(A) and Figure 4.2 is proposed to reflect that housing provision reflects a 'minimum'. This also ensures consistency with national policy and guidance, and Local Plan Policy R01.
To ensure that the plan is positively prepared and consistent with the NPPF criterion A should be updated to reflect that "provision should be made for a minimum of 7,752 new residential dwellings...".

CEG supports the inclusion of Figure 4.2 to explain how housing provision will occur. The column entitled 'Net homes' should either be retitled 'Minimum net homes' and/or a footnote should be included relating to DHGV to the effect that 2,700 is the minimum to be provided, consistent with the wording of Local Plan Policy R01.

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.

Delaying submission of the plan until the 2018 affordability ratio data is released or consider over allocating sites to increase the buffer of sites over for the plan period.

Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson representations Brentwood Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan (February 2019)
Merits of our client's landholdings and the Dunton Hills Garden Village
Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson's landholdings (part of allocation R01) are unconstrained, suitable, deliverable and available. As such the landholding can be brought forward as part of the wider Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation.
Our clients are housebuilders, not land promoters, and are seeking delivery at the earliest opportunity pending suitable access. Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes will continue to work with officers and Councillors (and other landowners/developers) to help bring forward this key site for meeting local housing needs in South Essex. It is absolutely right that the allocation should not be anchored to the work that will be carried out as part of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and the emerging Joint Strategic Plan (JSP).
The identification of strategic scale sites to meet Brentwood's housing needs is supported, as is the principle of a new settlement via the Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation (Policy R01) and its ambition for the delivery of additional homes beyond the plan period. The allocation represents an efficient use of greenfield land adjudged to be sustainable. Similarly we commend the Council for taking the decision to bring forward strategic greenbelt release alongside a comprehensively planned new settlement.
Our clients would support improved integration with Basildon alongside a landscape solution/approach agreed via a Statement of Common Ground and complementary policy positions (and/or supporting text) in both the Brentwood and Basildon Local Plans. This would help to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village and the future expansion of West Basildon whilst maintaining separation physically through the provision of publicly accessible green infrastructure and improving connectivity for new and existing residents. Our clients do not support the position taken by Basildon Borough Council and have submitted representations objecting to the draft Basildon Local Plan.
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
Paragraphs 4.11 - 4.21 of the draft plan set out Brentwood's housing need position based upon the application of the standard methodology for calculating a minimum Local Housing Need figure; and the identification of a 20% buffer of housing sites for the first five years of the plan. The plan, at paragraph 1.38, also states that:
"..it may be necessary to review the Brentwood Local Plan, at least in parts, to ensure any opportunities for further growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough identified in the Joint Strategic Plan can be realised."
Our clients support this approach. Brentwood is seeking to meet their identified housing needs in full plus a sufficient buffer in the early part of the plan period. Crucially the draft plan is not using the JSP as a reason for deferring difficult planning decisions. As such, the draft plan is not reliant upon the emerging JSP to meet Brentwood's needs up to 2033. There has been no consultation to date on the JSP (as at March 2019) and it would be wholly unsound to rely upon a future JSP to meet identified needs up to 2033. Our clients support the pragmatic approach set out by Brentwood which is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 11, 16 and 26 - a 'positively' prepared plan that seeks 'opportunities to meet the development needs' of their area and is 'sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change').
Our clients would advocate delaying submission of the publication plan until the 2018 affordability ratio data is released by the Office for National Statistics (the data used in the standard methodology for calculating housing need), due for publication in March/April 2019. This would allow time for factual updates to be made to Policy SP02 and housing target. Should submission come before the publication of the affordability ratio data, Brentwood should consider over allocating sites to increase the buffer of sites over for the whole plan period - sufficient to provide flexibility in respect of any increases brought about by the new affordability data published prior to or shortly after submission.
aecom.com
7/14
The recent release of the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) in February 2019 confirmed that Brentwood and all the other ASELA authorities (with the exception of Thurrock) have to identify a 20% buffer to their five year housing land supply and prepare a HDT Action Plan by August 2019. The minimum Local Housing Need figure (produced by the new standard methodology) will be applied to all authorities from 2018/19 for the purposes of the HDT (unless there is a plan that is less than 5 years old). As such Brentwood (and Basildon) will both be subject to HDT assessment on the basis of the minimum Local Housing Need figures until such time that their plans are adopted.
Table 1 (below) shows the HDT results published by MHCLG (19th February 2019) for all Councils that make up the ASELA. This shows housing delivery has only been achieved in one of the past three monitoring years (2016/17) for Basildon and it was never achieved by Brentwood. The HDT results evidence a persistent under delivery of housing in the South Essex region. Brentwood and Basildon are at risk of failing the HDT thresholds in 2019 and 2020. At present, Brentwood is in danger of falling below the 45% threshold this November 2019. This would leave the authority open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (the 'tilted balance') and susceptible to speculative applications outside of the identified draft allocations. For Basildon there is a real risk that they will also be captured by the presumption in favour of sustainable development (75% threshold) as early as November 2020. Basildon's position is even more precarious given that they have not identified sufficient land to meet their minimum Local Housing Need, let alone a 20% buffer for the first five years, in their previous consultation draft plan.
Table 1 South Essex HDT results (MHCLG, February 2019)
[see attachment]
This illustrates the severity of the housing crisis in South Essex and the pressing requirement for all ASELA authorities to identify sufficient land supply (to meet their needs and a 20% buffer for the first five years) and maintain the plan-led approach. Basildon's failure to allocate sufficient sites to meet housing needs will impact the other ASELA partners (e.g. increased unmet needs in the region).
Duty to Cooperate
The above issues should be addressed as a matter of urgency through Brentwood and Basildon's Duty to Cooperate Statements of Common Ground. A Duty to Cooperate position statement is welcome, although the MOU with the ASELA is insufficient to evidence the detailed Duty to Cooperate matters that need to be addressed with Basildon. A Statement of Common Ground that outlines areas of uncommon ground would be just as valuable in advance of submission of both plans and the forthcoming examinations.
This will help to avoid creating inconsistencies or prejudice any future plan making as part of the ASLEA JSP. If Basildon and Brentwood both wish to avoid the appearance of sprawl along the A127, this can be achieved through a simple Statement of Common Ground and via identical high-level policies (or supporting guidance) in each Local Plan. At present the current policy position does not ensure an integrated approach to delivery of the Garden Village and adjacent sites to the West of Basildon. It is our client's view that a failure to tackle this issue head-on now could stall delivery on Dunton Hills Garden Village. The JSP is not the appropriate vehicle for resolving a planning issue within the emerging Basildon and Brentwood plans; this matter must be resolved prior to submission, of both Local Plans (ideally via a Statement of Common Ground).
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt / Policy HP18: Designing Landscape and the Public Realm
Our clients support the strategic release of greenbelt sites in sustainable locations. Dunton Hills Garden Village has followed a robust Green Belt review; Sustainability Appraisal; and site selection process. The draft plan does not allocate land between Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon; therefore it maintains physical separation and avoids the coalescence of the new settlement and existing built up area of West Horndon. To date there is no evidence that it would be possible to meet the Borough's acute housing needs without amending the Green Belt boundaries as proposed in the draft plan.
The Stage III Green Belt Review January 2019 (GBR3) continues the work of the previous two stages. Again the methodology used appears sound and has been consistently applied. GBR3 assesses the DHGV site, Parcel 200, as being Not Contained, exhibiting Significant Separation Reduction between settlements, as being Functional Countryside and of Limited Relationship to Historic Towns. This results in an overall conclusion of Parcel 200 making a moderate to high contribution to the Green Belt. As with the LSCA the scale of DHGV inevitably results in elevated scores.
The Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation (shaded yellow) and wider Green Belt parcel incorporating land West of Basildon in Basildon Borough (shaded red) shown on Figure 1 (below) is an area bounded by the A127, the A128, a railway line and the western edge of Basildon - there are few (if any) examples nationally of more contained and defensible boundary in Green Belt terms.
Figure 1 Green Belt Context: Land West of Basildon (red) and Dunton Hills Garden Village (yellow)
[see attachment]
There would be clear separation maintained between Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon in Brentwood Borough. Paragraph 9.12 is also supported as it recognises that "The B148 (West Mayne) is the eastern road beyond the borough boundary separating the site from the built-up area of Basildon". If Dunton Hills Garden Village and the land West of Basildon (in Basildon Borough) are both allocated it is only logical to remove all of this land from the Green Belt based upon the strong defensible boundaries that exist for both areas. Landscape approach, design principles and physical separation can (as previously discussed) be dealt with via a Statement of Common Ground and complementary Local Plan policies (and guidance) in the respective plans. Policy R01 includes a detailed statutory policy to ensure the new settlement is comprehensively planned via landscape-led approach. This will ensure the development is not simply ribbon development along the A127 and instead an autonomous Settlement Category 2 Garden Village that will complement the existing settlement hierarchy and is well related to the existing communities of Basildon and Laindon and West Horndon.
The Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options October 2018 (LSCA) assigns a landscape capacity to the potential allocations. The methodology used appears sound and has been consistently applied. The LSCA identifies the DHGV site, Parcel 200, as being of high landscape sensitivity, medium - low landscape value and medium - medium low landscape capacity. It is noted that the scale of the strategic options considered make comparison with smaller sites difficult. The scale of DHGV inevitably results in elevated scores.
The site is not the subject of any landscape quality designations that would prevent development. Our clients consider that Policy HP18: Designing Landscape and the Public Realm, in combination with Policy R01(I) clause C, provide an adequate policy framework for guiding a future landscape scheme - including the provision of green infrastructure between R01 and the development of the West of Basildon.
Policy R01: Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation
The policy would benefit from being shortened and simplified. Much of the detail could instead be covered in the supporting text. Our clients would recommend a less prescriptive policy in favour of a series of development principles. The policy also recognises the appropriate phasing of infrastructure and mechanisms for delivery. However, our clients have a number of detailed comments to help enhance the clarity and utility of the draft policy.
R01(I)
 Clause B uses the term "self-sustaining" - this is currently an undefined term in the context of the facilities that may be required by future residents. It is likely that services and schooling would also be accessed in Basildon and so the policy should also recognise the importance with connectivity to nearby allocations and settlements in Basildon Borough. Whilst appreciating the need for a garden village to be separate, it should also be appropriately connected and complimentary to nearby settlements.
 There is a slight inconsistency between policy clauses A and D in the use of "around 2,700 homes" and "at least 2,700 homes" in the plan period. Our clients would favour the more positive "at least" in light of the pressing housing needs in the area.
 Policy clause D(c) currently expresses a requirement for employment land as 5.5ha. An alternative approach would be to also reference a jobs figure, employment densities are not fixed and the policy will need to remain flexible to provide the optimum employment solution on the site up to 2033.
 Policy clause D(d) references a co-located Secondary school, but this term is not defined in terms of what facilities could be appropriately co-located or any indication on forms of entry etc. This clause could cross reference to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that shall remain a living documented capable of being updated as the development of the site evolves.
 Policy clause D(h) states 50% of the "total land area", this term is not defined and may have implications for the net developable area. Without the benefit of a detailed masterplan and Environment Statement supporting an application this requirement appears needlessly onerous and will make the allocation less flexible. We would suggest removal of a specific percentage in advance of further masterplanning and consultation.
R01 (II)
 Policy clause C(f) states: "a green infrastructure buffer / wedge on the eastern boundary with Basildon Borough to achieve visual separation to help significantly improve the landscaped and habitat value thus reinforcing the beneficial purpose and use of the green belt in that zone." This matter needs careful consideration in advance of submission in light of Basildon's representations and their erroneous position on Green Belt coalescence and countryside encroachment in their draft plan (which fails to allocate sufficient land to meet needs). Brentwood should provide further clarity that this separation can be achieved without sterilising large tracts of the allocation. A modest multifunctional green gap running north-south in close proximity to the Borough boundary would be a proportionate response in this location.
 Policy clause D(c) states "pathways through the green and blue infrastructure (GBI) network will be made of permeable material and follow a coherent treatment throughout the village. The pathways will all connect into a circular walk, with interconnected shortcut routes and be signposted offering directions to key destination points". It is premature at this stage to place overly restrictive pathway design where they may be sound place-making reasons for not following this approach in all areas.
 Policy clause I(a) states that emphasis will be given to: "incorporating car sharing clubs and electric vehicle only development". Whilst the principle is supported, this may not be appropriate for all areas of this large allocation and would be overly restrictive.
 Policy clause L(b) includes a small typo for BREEAM. This clause should make clear that BREEAM is for certain types of building only.
R01 (III)
 Clause B states: "The development and phased delivery of DHGV must ensure the timely delivery of the required on-site and off-site infrastructure to address the impact of the new garden village". Whilst supported and the timely delivery on infrastructure is essential in the creation of a sense of community, off-site infrastructure may be beyond the control of the primary land owners/promoter, and risks stalling development if a Grampian condition is envisaged.
An explicit policy clause is urgently required to ensure for a no ransom position. The primary developer must build roads up to the boundary of Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes landholding. Without this added clause the allocation would be ineffective based upon the tests of soundness.
The Site benefits from the involvement of volume housebuilders which, according to the Letwin Review (2018), leads to a variety in product and higher build out rates. An extensive analysis of national house builder annual reports, conducted by Turley on behalf of Bellway Homes, demonstrates that average delivery rates (per outlet) range from between 40-58 units pa1. There is potential for sites (normally larger sites) to see a number of outlets building new homes at any one time. Additional outlets are sometimes in the form of a different house builder, but it can also be in the form of different products sold from different marketing suites by the same house builder. Crest Nicholson and Bellway Home's landholdings are jointly promoted in order to deliver high quality sustainable developments at pace and will help to achieve the housing trajectory set out in Appendix 1 of the draft plan.
The plan's delivery trajectory relies on increased delivery in the later part of the plan period (partly reliant on infrastructure investment). This emphasises the importance of infrastructure equalisation and removing any ransom scenarios as far as practically possible through statutory policy. In addition, it would be prudent for the ASELA authorities to work together to lever in external funding for reinforcements such as the gas pipeline to enable an alternative access arrangements and internal connectivity that would release more development land for housing and public open space later in the plan period.
R01 Supporting text comments:
 Paragraph 9.30 includes a reference to 'Medium' density- but this is not defined. The allocation location is in close proximity to Basildon and West Horndon and the potential for sustainable modes of transport lends itself to higher densities in district and local centres.
Transport policies B11 - B17
The general approach taken to transport within the Local Plan with the Built Environment policies (BE11 to BE17) is supported and it can be seen that these policies are feeding through into the policies for the site specific allocations.
The evidence base for the Local Plan includes Brentwood Borough Local Plan Transport Assessment (Local Plan TA) dated (October 2018) prepared by PBA and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) prepared by the Council. These documents together provides the transport element of the evidence base and support the Council's proposed development strategy including the proposed development at Dunton Hills. They are essential elements of the evidence base and their soundness is not questioned in these representation, however, the conclusions of the Local Plan TA and the IDP need to be better reflected in the Local Plan.
The Local Plan TA sets out the approach to the modelling work, results of modelling and junction assessment, highlights those worse performing junctions that may require mitigations, the sustainable measure proposed and the impact this has on the junction assessment to enable the development sites to come forward. The assessment covers key 27 junctions within Brentwood planning authority.
The assessment assumed that DHGV would provide 2,500 new homes in the Local Plan period along with 5.5ha of employment land. In addition, number of sites located within Basildon Borough Council and Havering Borough Council were included within the reference case scenario in order to accurately assess the impact of Brentwood Local Plan. The West Basildon Urban Extension was included within the reference case assuming provision of 1000 new homes as per 2016 Basildon Local Plan publication.
The Local Plan TA identifies a number of junctions that would need to be improved across the Borough to support the development proposed in the Local Plan. However, the Local Plan Submission Version does not include reference to these. As an example, the following table contains the identified improvements in the surrounding roads to Dunton Hills Garden Village.
Table 2 Results of PBA capacity assessment, Brentwood Local Plan Evidence Base
[see attachment]
While it is clear that some of these improvements would be provided via Essex County Council (ECC) or Highways England as the relevant highway authorities there is no reference made in the Local Plan to them. It would be expected that the evidence base would transfer through to the IDP to be clear on how and when these identified infrastructure improvements would be provided.
As each identified allocated site comes forward to a planning application stage it will define what highway improvements are needed through the Transport Assessment associated with the individual site. However, guidance should be given on what improvements have been identified as part of the Local Plan TA to ensure that the need for them is considered and if they are required then how would they be funded i.e. guidance is needed on the scope for any future Transport Assessments to support developments.
The IDP contains a similar table for highway infrastructure improvements and those relevant to Dunton Hills Garden Village are listed in Table 3 below:
Table 3 IDP Schedule extract.
In addition to four infrastructure requirements relating specifically to DHGV a number of requirements are set out in the IDP for new developments and site allocations coming forward in the Local Plan period. Key improvements to be delivered as part of DHGV development are:
 DHGV: Widening Connectivity - further feasibility studies required to improvements of pedestrian connectivity across the A127 and A128;
 DHGV: Walkways/ Cycleways - provision of a good footway and cycle way network;
 DHGV: Sustainable Transport Infrastructure - provision of cycle hub within the DHGV site; and
 DHGV: Public Realm and Village Square - subject to detailed masterplanning good quality pedestrian centres should be provided.
It is acknowledged within the proposed policy for Dunton Hills Garden Village that reference is made for the need for a Transport Assessment report to be undertaken and this is where the detailed assessment can be made of the highway infrastructure needed to support the proposed allocation. However, there should be some reference to the published evidence base to guide the scope of this work. This is not to say that the identified improvements will be needed, but they should be considered as they have been identified within the evidence base.
Attendance at the examination hearing sessions
Our clients request attendance at the relevant hearing sessions to make verbal submissions in response to matters and questions related to: the Duty to Cooperate; housing numbers and the spatial strategy, landscape, transport, infrastructure, deliverability and the strategic allocations. We reserve the right to make further representations at the examination hearing sessions, should work on Brentwood's Community Infrastructure Levy evolve in respect of any implications on strategic sites and their ability to deliver policy compliant schemes.

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.

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.

1. Introduction & Background
Introduction

1.1 This Regulation 19 Local Plan representation has been prepared by Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd on behalf of Mr Terry Haynes, on behalf of the freehold owner of the subject site on land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX as outlined by the Site Location Plan included at Appendix 1.

1.2 This submission is made under the Provisions of Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations (2012) and relates to the following sections of the Council's Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan:
- Section 4: Managing Growth
Specifically Policy SP02: Managing Growth
- Section 9: Site Allocations

Representation summary
1.3 In summary, the landowner wishes to highlight the sustainability of the proposed site on land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX (as illustrated by the Site Location Plan included at Appendix 1) to deliver much-needed new rural housing for Hook End enhancing its vitality. Please see the remainder of this supporting statement for further consideration in support of the subject site's inclusion in this emerging Local Plan strategy.

2. Soundness & Modifications
2.1 As the attached representation form confirms the landowners representations relate specifically and solely to the soundness of the draft Submission Local Plan in respect of being positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy in relation to the following sections of the emerging Local Plan:

- Section 4: Managing Growth

Specifically Policy SP02: Managing Growth
- Section 9: Site Allocations

Soundness
Section 4: Managing Growth
Draft Policy SP02: Managing Growth
2.2 Although on the whole it is generally considered that the Council's Pre-Submission Local Plan is sound there is some concern that the Council's Housing Requirement is not fully robust.

2.3 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on 'Housing and economic needs assessment', which was updated on the 20th February 2019, confirms at 'Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2a-005-20190220' that 2014 based household projections should be used as the baseline for the 'standard method'. The reason given for this approach is to provide stability for planning authorities and communities, ensure that historic under-delivery and declining affordability are reflected, and to be consistent with the Government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes.

2.4 Paragraph 4.13 of the Council's Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan confirms that Council's 'housing requirement figure' to be 350 dwellings per year. With a 20% uplift, the total annual housing requirement is 456 dwellings per year.

2.5 This housing requirement has been calculated within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, published in October 2018 (i.e. before the latest Planning Practice Guidance assessment) with this assessment confirming that the housing requirement has been calculated using the 2016 population projections as a starting point (see paragraph 8.26 of the SHMA in particular). Accordingly, the Plan cannot be considered to be fully sound on this basis.

2.6 An indicative assessment of housing need based on the Standard Method using the 2014 population projections was published in September 2017. This stated that Brentwood's housing need, based on the Standard Method, was 454 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% uplift to this figure would result in a housing requirement of 545 homes per year, or a total of 9,262 homes during the plan period 2016-2033.

2.7 This is an increase of 1,510 dwellings from the housing requirement calculated by the SHMA calculations which uses the 2016 population projections as a starting point.

2.8 Accordingly, we consider that the Inspector should, during the Examination, request that Brentwood update its evidence base, and its housing requirement, to reflect the 2014-based population projections. This will result in the requirement to identify additional site allocations, as considered further below.

2.9 With regards to Strategic Policy SP02, therefore, it is not considered that the Brentwood Local Plan-Pre-Submission Document can be considered to be robustly sound as, in accordance with paragraph 35 of NPPF3, the Plan is not fully consistent with National Policy in its use of 2016 population projections to determine its housing requirement. In this respect, the Plan has also not been positively prepared in full as it will not, as a minimum, meet its objectively assessed needs.

Section 9: Site Allocations
2.10 The sites that the Borough Council have identified for residential development are detailed at Chapter 9 of the Pre-Submission draft Local Plan. Table 4.2 of the Local Plan identifies that the allocations total 6,088 dwellings, with the remaining dwellings comprising completions between 2016/17 & 2017/18 (363 dwellings); extant permissions (926 dwellings); and the windfall allowance between 2023-2033 (410 dwellings).

2.11 Accordingly, should the Inspector agree with our assessment that Brentwood's housing requirement is not fully sound, and the housing requirement thus increases, it would therefore be necessary to identify additional sites for allocation.
1.4 The following section of this representation provides support for land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX, to be allocated for new residential development.
1.5 Notwithstanding this, it is considered that additional sites will be required in any event to ensure the housing requirement is met. Appendix 1 of the Local Plan sets out the Council's anticipated Housing Trajectory, which we do not fully agree with. The Council's calculations of when sites will be delivered, and how many dwellings will be delivered each year, appears ambitious.
1.6 In particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified as being capable of delivering 2,700 dwellings during the plan period, with the site being capable of delivering 100 dwellings starting from 2022/23 (i.e. within 3 years), and then between 150 - 300 dwellings each year thereafter.
1.7 This level of growth from such a strategic allocation does not appear realistic and no evidence has been put forward to date to support this forecast. For example, it is unlikely that the Local Plan will be adopted until 2020 at the earliest (the Council's Local Development Scheme
Page 4 C19049: Land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX


suggests that the plan would be adopted in Q3 2019, but the timescales have slipped as the Plan was due to have been submitted in Q1 2019).
1.8 For a scheme of Dunton Hills, and the level of constraints that it faces, and the vast range of application documents that would be required, including Environmental Assessment, it is realistic to assume that an outline application could take 9-12 months to be determined. Given the level of information that would be required to support the application (Consultant Reports, EA, Public/Statutory Consultation), therefore, it is realistic and reasonable to assume that it may take up to two years, from adoption of the plan in 2020, for an outline planning application to be granted planning permission.
1.9 There would then, of course, follow further applications to discharge conditions and Reserved Matters applications, none of which would be straight forward and would require similar levels of detail to an Outline Planning Application. This process could, itself, take 9-12 months, if not longer.
1.10 Accordingly, it is realistic to assume that, from adoption, it would take close to three years before planning permissions have been approved, and conditions discharged, such that development can commence on site. This would mean that, at the earliest, dwellings will not be brought forward until 2023/24, and not 2022/23 as considered by the Housing Trajectory. Such delays in the Council's Housing Trajectory will have inevitable consequences on the Local Authority being able to deliver its housing requirement during the Plan Period.
1.11 As such, it is considered that additional sites will be required during the Plan Period to ensure that a) the Local Authority is able to deliver its housing requirement during the Plan Period (notwithstanding our view that the Council has not calculated its correct requirement); and b) that additional sites will be required to allow for flexibility in allocated sites not being brought forward within the timescales identified within the Housing Trajectory.
1.12 Furthermore, it is considered that the Local Plan is not entirely sound as it does not comply fully with paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF3) (February 2019).
1.13 Paragraph 59 of the NPPF requires Local Authorities to 'boost significantly' the supply of housing and must, "ensure choice and competition in the market for land". This involves boosting provision of housing from a variety of sources, including small sites which are suitable for smaller housebuilders.
1.14 This is reinforced by paragraph 68 of the revised NPPF, which confirms that small sites make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements and confirms that planning authorities should accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.
1.15 The Council's housing strategy only allocates 5% on sites no larger than one hectare. The NPPF confirms that smaller sites make an important contribution to meeting housing requirement,
Page 5 C19049: Land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX


in part as they are able to be developed quickly and are able to therefore contribute towards housing supply whilst Strategic Sites are being brought forward in the background.
1.16 Accordingly, it is considered that, as identified above with the Dunton Hills Strategic Allocation, that a greater percentage of smaller sites (such as land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX) should be identified for allocation.

1.17 We would therefore request that the Local Authority reviews its housing supply, and particularly its approach to small sites, and allocate suitable smaller sites which can be brought forward early in the plan period.

Necessary modifications to make the Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan sound
1.18 With regards to Section 2, it is considered that Brentwood Borough Council will need to revisit its evidence base to determine a housing requirement which uses the 2014 population projections as a starting point. This will result in a larger housing requirement, with our estimate based on the indicative Standard Method being approximately 545 homes per year, or a total of 9,262 homes during the plan period 2016-2033.

Chapter 9 - Site Allocations & Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory
1.19 It is considered that additional sites should be allocated to ensure that the Local Authority can meet its housing requirement to 2033. Even if the Inspector agrees with the Council's objectively assessed need, it is likely that additional sites will be required to be brought forward given the Council's overly optimistic approach to its housing trajectory, particularly with regards to Dunton Hills Garden Village.
1.20 Furthermore, the Local Plan does not allocate a sufficient number of 'small sites' to contribute towards the housing requirement, as per paragraph 68 of NPPF3.
1.21 It is considered that land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX is an appropriate site for residential development and should be allocated for appropriate new residential development.
1.22 The site itself includes land directly east of Hook End and north of Wyatts Green which would continue the existing pattern of development in this location as well as extend north comprising a logical and well-contained urban extension to the village with existing residential development already neighbouring the site to the south and west. Despite this the subject site still remains of a greenfield nature situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt.

1.23 Although noted that Hook End/Wyatts Green are proposed to be classified as smaller villages within the Borough's Settlement Hierarchy the importance of allocating appropriate growth throughout the Borough cannot be underestimated. The subject site itself would be well-placed to assist in enhancing the vitality of these rural communities allowing these villages to grow and thrive, especially where there are groups of smaller settlements, with development
Page 6 C19049: Land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX


in one village able to support services in villages nearby as advocated by para 78 of NPPF3. This is particularly relevant in this instance given Hook End/Wyatt Green's physical relationship to the nearby villages of Stondon Massey and Doddinghurst as well as the village of Blackmore which itself includes some planned growth under the current Local Plan strategy.

1.24 Importantly NPPF3 also highlights at para 84 that planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. It adds at para 103 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.

1.25 Brentwood Borough Council published parts 1 & 2 of its Green Belt study in January 2018. These initial parts showed this part of Hay Green Lane lying on the southern edge of 'Parcel 48 Wyatt's Green East. The report when assessing the parcel as a whole, confirms that it makes a 'high' overall contribution to Green Belt Purposes although it is noted that the majority of this parcel is open to the east of Wyatt's Green with the subject site adjacent to the physical extent of the village to the north and much more likely to play a less substantial role in such purposes.

1.26 The Green Belt Study Part 3 - "Assessment of Potential Housing, Employment and Mixed Use Sites in the Green Belt and their Relative Contribution to the Purposes of the Green Belt Designation" - was published in November 2018, and subsequently amended in January 2019. This part of the Green Belt Study assesses the potential Site Allocations against the purposes of the Green Belt.

1.27 Our own assessment against the purposes of the Green Belt is given below.

Purpose 1: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas: The site lies within the rural area of Hook End and is well contained by existing built development and mature trees. Development would be seen as a logical extension to the physical extent of the village and would have a very limited encroachment into the countryside. Existing site boundaries would prevent any further development into the Green Belt, with these boundaries presenting a strong and definite boundary to further development.
Purpose 2: to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Development on this site would not significantly reduce the countryside gap between Hook End/Wyatts Green and nearby villages. Such countryside separation would be retained.
Purpose 3: to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: The site has no specific countryside function and would utilise a well-contained parcel of land surrounded by residential development.
Purpose 4: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: The site has no physical relationship with any historic town.

1.28 Accordingly, it is considered that the site is suitable to be released from the Green Belt.
1.29 Furthermore, it is noted that the Borough Council's proposed allocations allocates a number of sites within the Green Belt which the Green Belt Study confirms as making a 'moderate' contribution to the Green Belt, including:

Site R23 Brizes Corner Field, Kelvedon Hatch (23 dwellings);
Site R25 Land north of Woolard Way, Blackmore (40 dwellings); and
Site R26 Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore (30 dwellings).
1.30 Those sites listed above are located within villages and the rural area comparable to that of the subject site.

1.31 Accordingly, we would request that the Local Plan be modified to allocate land rear of Mill House Farm, Hay Green Lane, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0NX for appropriate new residential development in line with the prevailing character and density of neighbouring residential areas.

Conclusions
1.32 Based on the information set out above, it is considered that the inclusion of the subject site within the Council's proposed housing growth strategy or as an alternative reserve site would be sustainable and fully deliverable early within the Local Plan period, improving the overall soundness of the emerging Local Plan itself.

1.33 The possible low density nature of the allocation gives scope to provide a sensitively designed scheme which can be designed to integrate within and enhance the existing landscape having appropriate regard to local features and surrounding land uses, including existing neighbouring residential development.

1.34 Subsequently, the landowner contends that the relevant sections of the emerging Local Plan referred to within would be sound but could be improved further with the inclusion of this site ensuring the emerging Plan is positively prepared, effective and justified, and would be fully consistent with national policy including 'boosting significantly' the delivery of new homes within a borough that is heavily constrained by the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Inclusion of a red line boundary map for the site in question.

LLLP consider that the Plan requires modification to Policy SP02 to:
* increase the overall housing requirement in order to meet the current Local
Housing Need with a suitable, additional 20% supply buffer;
* extend and increase the housing requirement set out to ensure that there is a
minimum 15 year lifespan for the Plan at the point of adoption;
* remove or significantly modify through the allocation of additional sustainably
located sites the proposed stepped housing delivery trajectory from the policy
so that there is a significant increase in delivery in the early part of the Plan
period; and
* redress the imbalance in housing distribution that over-emphasises the DHGV
site and fails to align with the Plan's stated sequential land use test.

Representations for and on LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
Local Housing Need and Policy SP02: Managing Growth
March 2019
Introduction
1. Chilmark Consulting Ltd. (CCL) are instructed by and write for and on behalf of
LaSalle Land Limited Partnership (LLLP) with respect to the Brentwood Borough
Local Plan: Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with Local Housing Need and Policy SP02:
Managing Growth.
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
Local Housing Need and Planned Requirement
4. The Standard Method assessment for Brentwood Borough published by the
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in September
2017 identifies an assessed local housing need of 454 dwellings per annum (dpa).
5. The Brentwood Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment (January 2018)
was undertaken by consultants PBA in January 2018 and concluded that the
Borough had an Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAN) of 360 - 380 dpa.
6. The latest The Brentwood Borough Strategic Housing Market Assessment: Part
One (October 2018) was prepared by consultants PBA for the Borough Council.
The latest update considers the housing requirement using the Standard Method
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
2
updated to a 2019 base date. It concludes at Figure 2.1 that there is an uncapped
need for 365 dpa in the period 2019 - 2029.
7. The updated SHMA's calculation of the Local Housing Need requirement by the
Standard Method uses the 2016-based Sub National Housing Projections (see
paragraph 2.7). These are the latest projections available, however the National
Planning Policy Guidance (February 2019) confirms (Section 2a-005-20190220)
that the 2016-based projection should not be used for the purposes of projecting
the Local Housing Need requirement and that the older 2014-based Household
Projections should be used.
8. If the 2014-based projection is used within the Standard Method and applied with
the appropriate affordability adjustment (based on the latest median workplace
affordability ratio of 11.2) and the increase capped at 40% (as per the NPPG) then
LLLP calculate that the Borough's Local Housing Need is 452 dpa.
9. The Borough's SHMA as a key piece of the Plan's evidence should be updated to
take account of the current NPPG requirements and the stipulated use of the
2014-based household projections in calculating the Local Housing Need. The
latest SHMA (October 2018) identifies the importance of further review prior to the
Plan's submission for Public Examination at paragraph 9.6. LLLP support this
need for further review and update before the Plan is submitted.
10. LLLP are concerned that the Local Plan's Local Housing Need figure (set out at
paragraph 4.13 and in Figure 4.1) of 350 dpa does not represent the appropriate
starting point for establishing the Local Housing Need and must be updated and
revised to 452 dpa in order to accord with the NPPG, particularly the expectation
at Section 2a-003-20190220, that the Standard Method will be used and that any
other method will only be used in exceptional circumstances. LLLP do not
consider that there are exceptional circumstances arising in this case.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
3
11. The proposed housing requirement of 7, 752 new dwellings over the plan period
set out in Policy SP02 should be increased to at least modified to 9,214 dwellings1
in the 17 year period 2016 - 2033.
12. Furthermore, with regard to LLLP's concern that the Local Plan period will not be
15 years at the date of adoption in accordance with the NPPF (see LLLP's
separate representation regarding paragraph 1.1 of the Local Plan), the Local
Housing Need and the planned housing requirement should be adjusted
accordingly.
Housing Land Supply and Housing Delivery Test
13. Figure 4.1 of the Pre-Submission Local Plan identifies an annual housing supply
buffer of 456 dpa. This figure is understood to be based on the application of a
20% uplift to the 380 dpa annual housing figure set out in the Borough's SHMA
(January 2018 version). The Plan states that the housing supply buffer allows for
additional housing supply to be maintained throughout the plan period.
14. LLLP welcomes the principle of setting a housing land supply position in excess of
the annual housing requirement as a positive and pragmatic approach to meeting
and significantly boosting the Borough's housing supply.
15. As set out above LLLP considers that the Local Housing Need is 452 dpa based
on the application of the Standard Method using 2019 data. It therefore follows
that a 20% uplift to the Local Housing Need (452 dpa + 20% uplift = 542 dpa)
should be applied in order to provide additional flexibility in the supply and delivery
of sites. The additional uplift is also to serve as a safeguard for any further uplift in
the Local Housing Need resulting from future changes to the Standard Method
prior to the Examination and Adoption of the Plan.
16. This additional housing supply is particularly important in Brentwood Borough
given the failure to maintain a five year housing land supply as paragraph 4.18 of
the Pre-Submission Local Plan identifies.
1 The increased figure of 9,214 dwellings is based on the current Local Housing Need of 452 dpa + the 20%
additional supply buffer proposed by the Council which totals 542 dpa. 17 years x 542 dpa = 9,214
dwellings
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
4
17. Paragraph 4.18 of the Plan also notes that it is not possible to identify a five year
housing land supply capable of delivering the annualised housing requirement.
18. The Government's recently published Housing Delivery Test (February 2019)
confirms a significant and persistent shortfall in housing delivery (only 51% of the
relevant housing target was delivered in the past three years to 2017/18 - totalling
474 dwellings in total), resulting in the Borough needing to add a further 20%
buffer to its housing land supply.
19. LLLP conclude that the Borough's lack of five year housing land supply represents
a failure to meet the requirements of the NPPF at paragraph 67. The persistent
lack of delivery arises from an inability to bring forward sufficient sites and land in
the immediate period and is due to the Council's failure to identify and allocate
housing sites capable of development in the short term.
20. LLLP's land interest at Honeypot Lane in Brentwood is a sustainable development
location (as earlier versions of the Local Plan identified in allocating the site and as
the Sustainability Appraisal continues to demonstrate) and is capable of making an
immediate contribution to the five year housing land supply. This would represent
a significant positive benefit for the Borough in the context of persistent failures to
deliver sufficient housing or to provide a mix and choice of sites.
Stepped Housing Delivery Trajectory
21. Policy SP02 proposes a stepped housing trajectory with an annual average rate of
delivery of 310 dpa for the period 2016/17 - 2022/23 rising to 584 dpa from
2023/24 to 2033.
22. Paragraphs 4.19 et seq. set out the Council's rationale for a stepped trajectory,
noting that Green Belt covers a large proportion of the Borough making it difficult
to achieve a five year land supply. The issue of land constraint has however been
well understood in Brentwood Borough for many years and the failure to put a new
Local Plan in place with adequate allocations of housing land in sustainable
locations has compounded the acute problems that now result in terms of the lack
of a five year housing land supply. Put simply, too little has been done to
positively address the issue.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
5
23. The Plan's proposed spatial strategy and distribution of growth (which favours
substantial housing delivery in the form of a long-term new settlement at Dunton
Hills Garden Village (DHGV) representing 35% of all the proposed future housing
supply according to Figure 4.2) will not remedy the persistent lack of immediate
and short term housing land supply.
24. There is an inherent risk to longer term delivery and supply of housing as new
settlements and large scale extensions necessarily take many years to be
effectively planned, consented and then to deliver the expected housing. With
such a strategy immediate housing supply shortfalls are not effectively resolved
and the lack of housing supply is compounded in the remainder of the plan period.
25. The NPPF is clear that local authorities should significantly boost the supply of
housing. Brentwood Borough is an area with a persistent record of under-delivery
and housing shortfall. The stepped trajectory represents a failure to plan positively
over many years. It artificially restricts the supply of housing land and continues to
risk a mismatch with meeting housing needs and the wider principles of
sustainable development as well as the Local Plan's own stated strategic driving
forces. It undermines the national policy of significantly boosting the housing
supply.
26. The housing delivery trajectory should take a far more positive and proactive
approach to meeting, in full, the housing needs arising, including the extant
backlog caused by the lack of a five year land supply.
27. The barrier to delivery of sufficient sites in the first five year period is caused by the
lack of an appropriate mix and range of housing allocations in sustainable
locations (including LLLP's land interest at Honeypot Lane, Brentwood) and the
Council's spatial strategy that pursues housing development through Green Belt
release to create a standalone new settlement that will inevitably take far longer to
come forward and be in a position to contribute to the Borough's housing land
supply.
28. The stepped trajectory is not effective in meeting housing needs, is not positive or
sufficiently proactive and essentially pushes back the delivery of adequate levels
of new housing with no guarantee that an increased level of completions will be
secured in the longer term.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
6
The Sequential Approach to Housing Location
29. The distribution of future housing growth is apportioned through a sequential land
use test according to paragraph 4.22. The test priorities growth based on
brownfield and land in urban areas first, followed by brownfield land in the Green
belt.
30. Figure 4.2 sets out the results of the sequential approach to allocating housing
land which indicates inter alia: that 15% of housing is to be allocated on brownfield
land within the Brentwood urban area; 7% on brownfield land elsewhere; and
some 16% of Green Belt land at the edge of Brentwood urban area. 35% (2,700
dwellings) are proposed to be allocated to Dunton Hills Garden Village.
31. LLLP have two principal concerns with the distribution of housing land resulting
from the use of the sequential approach:
* the approach under-values the importance of existing settlements, such as
Brentwood, to provide sustainable locations for future housing growth,
including use of greenfield and Green Belt land within and adjacent to the
urban area. Such locations, including LLLP's land interest at Honeypot Lane
in Brentwood, represent sustainable development locations capable of
comprehensive integration with the existing urban fabric; swift delivery to meet
evident housing needs; and contribution towards community facilities and
services as appropriate. It is evident (as the Sustainability Appraisal identifies
reasonable alternative sites, including Honeypot Lane, Brentwood) that there
is a greater opportunity for development in and adjacent to Brentwood than
the Plan currently makes allowance for.
* having failed to maximise the opportunities for existing higher order existing
settlements like Brentwood (as set out above) the sequential approach then
directs much of the Borough's new residential development to DHGV an
undeveloped, greenfield/Green Belt location that is unconnected to the
existing settlement pattern or transport infrastructure and which would involve
very extensive loss of Green Belt land. The proposed strategic allocation at
DHGV does not align with the sequential approach given the Plan's failure to
maximise development opportunities in or at the edge of existing settlements
first and foremost. In addition, LLLP are concerned that development of
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
7
DHGV will have significant adverse effects including, inter alia, landscape
character and visual impact, flood risk, highways capacity/connectivity and
ecology and that these effects are, at this stage, largely untested or evaluated
in any detail.
Conclusions
32. LLLP conclude that:
* the Local Plan's stated housing need figure does not represent the appropriate
starting point for establishing the Local Housing Need in accordance with the
Standard Method and the NPPG; and is an under-estimate of the housing
required in the Borough;
* the housing requirement should be increased to at least 9,214 dwellings in the
period 2016 - 2033;
* there is a persistent lack of a five year housing land supply contrary to the
NPPF and that the lack of delivery of housing arises from the lack of sufficient
sites and land available now and in the short term;
* the proposed stepped housing delivery trajectory proposed in Policy SP02 at
point A is not consistent with the NPPF; is not justified in terms of meeting an
acute and evident shortfall in housing land supply; and does not represent an
effective or positive strategy;
* the spatial distribution strategy, including a significant reliance upon DHGV to
bring forward 35% of all the future housing will not address the acute shortfall
and lack of five year housing land supply. The barrier to delivery of sufficient
sites in the first five year period is caused by the lack of an appropriate mix
and range of housing allocations in sustainable locations (including LLLP's
land interest at Honeypot Lane, Brentwood).
33. As concluded from the matters set out above, LLLP object to Policy SP02. The
policy is not sound as it is not justified, effective, positively prepared or consistent
with national policies.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
8
Modifications Required
34. LLLP consider that the Plan requires modification to Policy SP02 to:
* increase the overall housing requirement in order to meet the current Local
Housing Need with a suitable, additional 20% supply buffer;
* extend and increase the housing requirement set out to ensure that there is a
minimum 15 year lifespan for the Plan at the point of adoption;
* remove or significantly modify through the allocation of additional sustainably
located sites the proposed stepped housing delivery trajectory from the policy
so that there is a significant increase in delivery in the early part of the Plan
period; and
* redress the imbalance in housing distribution that over-emphasises the DHGV
site and fails to align with the Plan's stated sequential land use test.

Brentwood Borough Council will need to revisit its evidence base to determine a housing requirement which uses the 2014 population projections as a starting point. This will result in a larger housing requirement, with our estimate based on the indicative Standard Method being approximately 545 homes per year, or a total of 9,262 homes during the plan period 2016-2033.

This Regulation 19 Local Plan representation has been prepared by Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd on behalf of Mr Terry Haynes, on behalf of the freehold owner of the subject site on land south of Hook End Road, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0HA as outlined by the Site Location Plan included at Appendix 1. This submission is made under the Provisions of Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations (2012) and relates to the following sections of the Council's Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan: - Section 4: Managing Growth, Specifically Policy SP02: Managing Growth - Section 9: Site Allocations
Representation summary: In summary, the landowner wishes to highlight the sustainability of the proposed site south of Hook End Road, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0HA (as illustrated by the Site Location Plan included at Appendix 1) to deliver much-needed new rural housing for Hook End enhancing its vitality. Please see the remainder of this supporting statement for further consideration in support of the subject site's inclusion in this emerging Local Pan strategy. Soundness: As the attached representation form confirms the landowners representations relate specifically and solely to the soundness of the draft Submission Local Plan in respect of being positively prepared, justified, effective, and consistent with national policy in relation to the following sections of the emerging Local Plan: - Section 4: Managing Growth Specifically Policy SP02: Managing Growth - Section 9: Site Allocations - Soundness - Section 4: Managing Growth. Draft Policy SP02: Managing Growth - Although on the whole it is generally considered that the Council's Pre-Submission Local Plan is sound there is some concern that the Council's Housing Requirement is not fully robust. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on 'Housing and economic needs assessment', which was updated on the 20th February 2019, confirms at 'Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2a-005-20190220' that 2014 based household projections should be used as the baseline for the 'standard method'. The reason given for this approach is to provide stability for planning authorities and communities, ensure that historic under-delivery and declining affordability are reflected, and to be consistent with the Government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Paragraph 4.13 of the Council's Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan confirms that Council's 'housing requirement figure' to be 350 dwellings per year. With a 20% uplift, the total annual housing requirement is 456 dwellings per year. This housing requirement has been calculated within the Strategic Housing Market Assessment, published in October 2018 (i.e. before the latest Planning Practice Guidance assessment) with this assessment confirming that the housing requirement has been calculated using the 2016 population projections as a starting point (see paragraph 8.26 of the SHMA in particular). Accordingly, the Plan cannot be considered to be fully sound on this basis. An indicative assessment of housing need based on the Standard Method using the 2014 population projections was published in September 2017. This stated that Brentwood's housing need, based on the Standard Method, was 454 dwellings per annum. Applying the 20% uplift to this figure would result in a housing requirement of 545 homes per year, or a total of 9,262 homes during the plan period 2016-2033. This is an increase of 1,510 dwellings from the housing requirement calculated by the SHMA calculations which uses the 2016 population projections as a starting point. Accordingly, we consider that the Inspector should, during the Examination, request that Brentwood update its evidence base, and its housing requirement, to reflect the 2014-based population projections. This will result in the requirement to identify additional site allocations, as considered further below. With regards to Strategic Policy SP02, therefore, it is not considered that the Brentwood Local Plan-Pre-Submission Document can be considered to be robustly sound as, in accordance with paragraph 35 of NPPF3, the Plan is not fully consistent with National Policy in its use of 2016 population projections to determine its housing requirement. In this respect, the Plan has also not been positively prepared in full as it will not, as a minimum, meet its objectively assessed needs. Section 9: Site Allocations - The sites that the Borough Council have identified for residential development are detailed at Chapter 9 of the Pre-Submission draft Local Plan. Table 4.2 of the Local Plan identifies that the allocations total 6,088 dwellings, with the remaining dwellings comprising completions between 2016/17 & 2017/18 (363 dwellings); extant permissions (926 dwellings); and the windfall allowance between 2023-2033 (410 dwellings). Accordingly, should the Inspector agree with our assessment that Brentwood's housing requirement is not fully sound, and the housing requirement thus increases, it would therefore be necessary to identify additional sites for allocation. The following section of this representation provides support for land south of Hook End Road, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0HA, to be allocated for residential development. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that additional sites will be required in any event to ensure the housing requirement is met. Appendix 1 of the Local Plan sets out the Council's anticipated Housing Trajectory, which we do not fully agree with. The Council's calculations of when sites will be delivered, and how many dwellings will be delivered each year, appears ambitious. In particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified as being capable of delivering 2,700 dwellings during the plan period, with the site being capable of delivering 100 dwellings starting from 2022/23 (i.e. within 3 years), and then between 150 - 300 dwellings each year thereafter. This level of growth from such a strategic allocation does not appear realistic and no evidence has been put forward to date to support this forecast. For example, it is unlikely that the Local Plan will be adopted until 2020 at the earliest (the Council's Local Development Scheme suggests that the plan would be adopted in Q3 2019, but the timescales have slipped as the Plan was due to have been submitted in Q1 2019). For a scheme of Dunton Hills, and the level of constraints that it faces, and the vast range of application documents that would be required, including Environmental Assessment, it is realistic to assume that an outline application could take 9-12 months to be determined. Given the level of information that would be required to support the application (Consultant Reports, EA, Public/Statutory Consultation), therefore, it is realistic and reasonable to assume that it may take up to two years, from adoption of the plan in 2020, for an outline planning application to be granted planning permission. There would then, of course, follow further applications to discharge conditions and Reserved Matters applications, none of which would be straight forward and would require similar levels of detail to an Outline Planning Application. This process could, itself, take 9-12 months, if not longer. Accordingly, it is realistic to assume that, from adoption, it would take close to three years before planning permissions have been approved, and conditions discharged, such that development can commence on site. This would mean that, at the earliest, dwellings will not be brought forward until 2023/24, and not 2022/23 as considered by the Housing Trajectory. Such delays in the Council's Housing Trajectory will have inevitable consequences on the Local Authority being able to deliver its housing requirement during the Plan Period. As such, it is considered that additional sites will be required during the Plan Period to ensure that a) the Local Authority is able to deliver its housing requirement during the Plan Period (notwithstanding our view that the Council has not calculated its correct requirement); and b) that additional sites will be required to allow for flexibility in allocated sites not being brought forward within the timescales identified within the Housing Trajectory. Furthermore, it is considered that the Local Plan is not entirely sound as it does not comply fully with paragraph 68 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF3) (February 2019). Paragraph 59 of the NPPF requires Local Authorities to 'boost significantly' the supply of housing and must, "ensure choice and competition in the market for land". This involves boosting provision of housing from a variety of sources, including small sites which are suitable for smaller housebuilders. This is reinforced by paragraph 68 of the revised NPPF, which confirms that small sites make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements and confirms that planning authorities should accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare. The Council's housing strategy only allocates 5% on sites no larger than one hectare. The NPPF confirms that smaller sites make an important contribution to meeting housing requirement, in part as they are able to be developed quickly and are able to therefore contribute towards housing supply whilst Strategic Sites are being brought forward in the background. Accordingly, it is considered that, as identified above with the Dunton Hills Strategic Allocation, that a greater percentage of smaller sites (such as land south of Hook End Road) should be identified for allocation. We would therefore request that the Local Authority reviews its housing supply, and particularly its approach to small sites, and allocate suitable smaller sites which can be brought forward early in the plan period. Necessary modifications to make the Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan robustly sound: With regards to Section 2, it is considered that Brentwood Borough Council will need to revisit its evidence base to determine a housing requirement which uses the 2014 population projections as a starting point. This will result in a larger housing requirement, with our estimate based on the indicative Standard Method being approximately 545 homes per year, or a total of 9,262 homes during the plan period 2016-2033. Chapter 9 - Site Allocations & Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory - It is considered that additional sites should be allocated to ensure that the Local Authority can meet its housing requirement to 2033. Even if the Inspector agrees with the Council's objectively assessed need, it is likely that additional sites will be required to be brought forward given the Council's overly optimistic approach to its housing trajectory, particularly with regards to Dunton Hills Garden Village. Furthermore, the Local Plan does not allocate a sufficient number of 'small sites' to contribute towards the housing requirement, as per paragraph 68 of NPPF3. It is considered that land south of Hook End Road, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0HA is an appropriate site for residential development and should be allocated for appropriate new residential development. The site itself includes land directly south of Hook End Road which would continue the existing pattern of ribbon development in this location as well as extend south comprising a logical and well-contained urban extension to the village with existing residential development already neighbouring the site on 3 sides. Despite this the subject site still remains of a greenfield nature situated within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Although noted that Hook End is proposed to be classified as a smaller village within the Borough's Settlement Hierarchy the importance of allocating appropriate growth throughout the Borough cannot be underestimated. The subject site itself would be well-placed to assist in enhancing the vitality of this rural community allowing the village to grow and thrive, especially where there are groups of smaller settlements, with development in one village able to support services in villages nearby as advocated by para 78 of NPPF3. This is particularly relevant in this instance given Hook End's physical relationship to the nearby villages of Stondon Massey, Doddinghurst and Wyatts Green as well as the village of Blackmore which itself includes some planned growth under the current Local Plan strategy. Importantly NPPF3 also highlights at para 84 that planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business and community needs in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public transport. It adds at para 103 that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making. Brentwood Borough Council published parts 1 & 2 of its Green Belt study in January 2018. These initial parts showed Hook End Road lying on the southern edge of 'Parcel 49a Stondon Massey and Hook End'. The report when assessing the parcel as a whole, confirms that it makes a 'moderate' overall contribution to Green Belt Purposes. The Green Belt Study Part 3 - "Assessment of Potential Housing, Employment and Mixed Use Sites in the Green Belt and their Relative Contribution to the Purposes of the Green Belt Designation" - was published in November 2018, and subsequently amended in January 2019. This part of the Green Belt Study assesses the potential Site Allocations against the purposes of the Green Belt. Our own assessment against the purposes of the Green Belt is given below. Purpose 1: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas: The site lies within the rural area of Hook End and is well contained by existing built development and mature trees. Development would be seen as a logical extension to the physical extent of the village and would have a very limited encroachment into the countryside. Existing site boundaries would prevent any further development into the Green Belt, with these boundaries presenting a strong and definite boundary to further development. Purpose 2: to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Development on this site would not significantly reduce the countryside gap between Hook End and nearby villages. Such countryside separation would be retained. Purpose 3: to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: The site has no specific countryside function and would utilise a well-contained parcel of land surrounded by residential development. Purpose 4: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: The site has no physical relationship with any historic town. Accordingly, it is considered that the site is suitable to be released from the Green Belt. Furthermore, it is noted that the Borough Council's proposed allocations allocates a number of sites within the Green Belt which the Green Belt Study confirms as making a 'moderate' contribution to the Green Belt, similar to Hook End Road, including: Site R23 Brizes Corner Field, Kelvedon Hatch (23 dwellings); Site R25 Land north of Woolard Way, Blackmore (40 dwellings); and Site R26 Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore (30 dwellings). Those sites listed above are located within villages and the rural area comparable to that at Hook End Road. Accordingly, we would request that the Local Plan be modified to allocate land south of Hook End Road for appropriate new residential development in line with the prevailing character and density of neighbouring residential areas. Conclusions - Based on the information set out above, it is considered that the inclusion of the subject site within the Council's proposed housing growth strategy or as an alternative reserve site would be sustainable and fully deliverable early within the Local Plan period, improving the overall soundness of the emerging Local Plan itself. The possible low density nature of the allocation gives scope to provide a sensitively designed scheme which can be designed to integrate within and enhance the existing landscape having appropriate regard to local features and surrounding land uses, including existing neighbouring residential development. Subsequently, the landowner contends that the relevant sections of the emerging Local Plan referred to within would be sound but could be improved further with the inclusion of this site ensuring the emerging Plan is positively prepared, effective and justified, and would be fully consistent with national policy including 'boosting significantly' the delivery of new homes within a borough that is heavily constrained by the Metropolitan Green Belt. Participation at Hearing: The landowner reserves the right for them or their representative to participate at the associated Local Plan hearings (Examination in Public (EiP)) in relation to this emerging Local Plan process. This may be necessary to provide continued support for the inclusion of land south of Hook End Road, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex, CM15 0HA within the emerging Local Plan's proposed housing growth strategy helping to secure its residential allocation.

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.

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.

The Plan should be amended to allocate a number of additional smaller and medium sized sites, as required by paragraph 68 of the NPPF, which will ensure provision of a
five year housing supply, to enable continued delivery of homes throughout the Plan period.

RE Planning Policy Framework 1.24 - 1.25
Planning Policy Framework
Since the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation, which took place in early 2018, the revised NPPF has been published. This Plan will therefore now be examined against the policies set out in the revised NPPF (February 2019). Paragraph 212 of the NPPF confirms this, stating that:
'Plans may ...need to be revised to reflect policy changes which this replacement Framework has made. This should be progressed as quickly as possible, either through a partial revision or by preparing a new plan.'
We question whether, in light of this fundamental change to the planning policy context, as well as changes to the introduction of the Standard Methodology for calculating housing need and the Housing Delivery Test, which will be discussed below, the Plan should progress to Examination.
In addition, we note that significant elements of the evidence base to the Plan, which were prepared under the 2012 NPPF, have not been updated.
For example, the Site Assessment Methodology and Summary of Outcomes - Working Draft provides the basis on which sites have been assessed as suitable for development and whether they should be allocated in the Plan. This document has not been amended to reflect the publication of the revised NPPF, or the Standard Methodology. The paper still refers to making provision for 'slightly above 380 dwellings per annum'; in fact, this number will need to increase significantly, for reasons set out below.
On this basis, we believe that the Plan is unsound. It is not positively prepared because it does not make provision for the Borough's objectively assessed needs and it is not justified because the evidence base on which it is based is not proportionate.
The Plan should be updated so that the housing need is calculated based on the Government's standard methodology for calculating housing need, as well as reflecting the findings of the Housing Delivery Test. This will significantly increase the housing numbers and the number of sites required. Further consultation should then take place on a revised draft Plan, before it is submitted for Examination.

RE: Policy R01 (i) Garden Village Strategic Allocation
Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation: Policy R01 (I)
Land at Dunton Hills (east of the A128, south of the A127 and north of the C2C railway line, approximately 259.2 ha in size) is allocated for residential-led development to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).
The policy states that development will deliver a mix of uses to comprise around 2,700 homes in the plan period (as part of an overall indicative capacity of around 4,000 homes to be delivered beyond 2033 - subject to further feasibility and assessment of impact). This number has increased from 2,500 homes stated in the Preferred Site Allocations Consultation document of March 2018.
We object to this policy to propose a new settlement to deliver 2,700 dwellings during the plan period to meet a significant proportion the Borough's housing needs. Whilst we do not object to the principle of a new settlement, we do not consider that it should be relied upon to deliver such a significant proportion of the Borough's housing need within the timeframe envisaged.
We consider there to be both generic and site-specific constraints to delivery. Delivery of this strategic allocation is crucial to being able to demonstrate and maintain a five-year supply in the early Plan period, meaning the Plan fails the tests of soundness as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
It is considered that such a significant reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations, for example Braintree District, Tendring District and Colchester Borough councils in relation to the North Essex Garden Communities.
Research published by consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (Start to Finish: How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver? November 2016) found that average planning approval period and delivery of first dwelling (i.e. from the date of the validation of the planning application) for sites of over 2,000 dwellings was just under seven years. This compares to just under five and a half years for sites of between 500 - 999 dwellings, just over four years for sites of 100 - 499 dwellings and just under three years for sites up to 99 dwellings.
The housing trajectory suggest that DHGV will deliver 750 dwellings by 2026. However, given the recent research, adopting the lag of seven years from a Plan adoption date before the end of 2019 (which we consider highly ambitious) would mean there would be no deliveries on site until after 2026.
Paragraph 9.33 states that of the 6,700 homes, 4,000 are to be delivered after 2033. However, this is caveated by the statement 'subject to further feasibility and assessment of impact', calling into doubt whether 4,000 can in fact be delivered on site.
The Plan places significant reliance on the timely delivery of Dunton Hills Garden Village. This is not a positive strategy for meeting housing need and does not provide the flexibility required to address changes in circumstances. The allocation should be complemented by the allocation of small sites, to improve deliverability.
We wish to participate in the Examination to set out the case that additional smaller sites should be allocated, to ensure the Plan's deliverability and to ensure a constant delivery of new homes.

RE Policy SP02 - Managing Growth
Housing Delivery
The Plan proposes that as 'the high proportion of designated Green Belt within the Borough makes it extremely difficult to achieve a five year supply' (Paragraph 4.19), a greater proportion of the required homes are forecast to be delivered in the period beyond 2023. Policy SP02 therefore sets out a stepped trajectory of delivery of 310 homes per annum to 2023, followed by a higher target of 584 per year to 2033.
We do not believe that Policy SP02 is sound because it does not provide an appropriate strategy to comply with the requirements of the NPPF, which states in paragraph 23 that:
'Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.'
The strategy does not result in the delivery of housing throughout the Plan period. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF requires strategic policies to include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the Plan period. Appendix 1 of the Plan sets out this housing trajectory, which demonstrates that no units will be delivered in 2019/2020 from the site allocations, and only 66 units are proposed to be delivered in 2020/2021, with 318 in 2021/2022 and 632 in 2023/2024.
We question whether this is an appropriate strategy, and believe that on this basis, Policy SP02 is unsound because it is not justified.
To set out the case that the Plan should allocate additional, smaller sites, to enable the Plan to deliver homes throughout the Plan period.

RE Local Housing Need - Paragraphs 4.11 - 4.21
Housing Need
In October 2018, the Government consulted on technical changes to its proposed Standard Methodology to calculate housing need based not on the 2016 household projections published by the Office for National Statistics, but on the 2014 household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). These revised projections result in a housing figure for the Borough of 456 dwellings per annum.
In February 2019, the Government published a summary of the responses to its October 2018 technical consultation and its view on the way forward, in which it confirmed that its proposed approach provided the most appropriate approach 'for providing stability and certainty to the planning system in the short term' and that Local Planning Authorities should not use the 2016 household projections, which resulted in lower housing numbers, as a reason to justify lower housing need.
The Plan states that the Borough's annual housing requirement is still 380 homes per annum, based on the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016). However, paragraph 4.16 of the Plan sets out the intention to make provision for an additional housing supply buffer, which provides a 20% uplift to the annual housing figure of 380 units, resulting in provision of 456 dwellings per annum, resulting in a requirement for 7,752 dwellings from 2016 - 2033. This is the same figure as required by the Government's Standard Methodology for Calculating Housing Need.
However, Brentwood Borough Council was recently identified in the publication of the Government's Housing Delivery Test as an authority which has delivered less than 85% of its housing requirement, and therefore has to add a 20% buffer to its housing land supply figure.
We therefore object to the housing requirement set out in the Plan on the basis that it is insufficient to meet the Borough's needs. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing. It expects evidence to be used to ensure that the Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the other policies set out in the NPPF. The Plan does not do this; it only makes provision for the OAN and does not provide for the additional 20% buffer, as required under the Housing Delivery Test.
It cannot be positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and therefore cannot be considered sound.
The Plan should be updated to make provision for the Borough's objectively assessed need, to take account of the figure in the Government's Standard Methodology for Calculating Housing Need, with an additional 20% buffer to reflect the Housing Delivery Test.
If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary. To set out why the Plan is not making adequate provision for new housing.

RE Figure 2.3 - Settlement Hierarchy
Settlement hierarchy
To promote sustainable growth in rural areas, the NPPF (2019) paragraph 78 states that housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities, to ensure villages grow and thrive. To ensure the Local Plan responds to this, a broad Settlement Hierarchy Assessment has been undertaken to understand the role, function and relationship of Brentwood's dispersed settlements.
The Plan sets out the settlement hierarchy in the Borough. Ingrave is classed as a Category 3 settlement. Whilst we support the classification of Ingrave as a "Category 3 - Large Village", we object to the inconsistent treatment of this settlement in comparison to other settlements occupying the same level in the hierarchy.
For example, the other Large Villages of Kelvedon Hatch, Blackmore and Hook End/Tipps Cross (previously a smaller village) have been allocated development. However, neither Ingrave and Herongate (now linked), Wyatts Green nor Mountnessing, have been allocated any development. Mountnessing has already accommodated some development though existing permissions on previously developed sites, but the same is not true for Ingrave.
The moratorium of growth in these villages is contrary to the NPPF, which states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The NPPF goes further, stating that Plans should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive especially where this will support local services (paragraph 78).
As drafted, the Plan is not sound. It identifies Ingrave as a Category 3 settlement but does not allocate housing in or near the settlement. This is not an appropriate strategy and therefore the Plan is not justified in this respect.
Additional land for housing should be allocated at Ingrave to meet local, settlement specific housing needs to address localised affordability issues but also retain the working age population in the village to ensure the viability and vitality of local shops and services.
Paragraph 2.16 of the Plan notes that, in relation to Category 3 settlements;
'Brownfield redevelopment opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs, and policies in this Plan will help to bring forward nearby redevelopment of brownfield sites in the Green Belt where appropriate.'
This emphasis on bringing forward brownfield sites 'nearby' Category 3 settlements is supported. This approach would provide a more flexible approach and would enable sites such as our client's site to come forward.
We wish to participate in the Examination to set out the case that additional sites should be allocated in and near to Ingrave, a sustainable, Category 3 settlement.

RE: Site Assessment Methodology and Summary of Outcomes - Working Draft (2018)
The spatial strategy, as set out at paragraph 3.13, focuses upon the sequential use of land, which prioritises using brownfield land and to only release Green Belt land after all sustainably located, suitable, available and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified as allocations. This is in line with paragraph 137 of the NPPF, which requires that:
'Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.'
However, we do not consider that the capacity of brownfield sites has been fully explored. The Stage 2 assessment process discounts sites where they are considered to be in an unsustainable location, (which included sites in the Green Belt with no connecting boundary to an existing urban area,) before considering the potential to use brownfield land. This has resulted in sites such as site 183, our client's site, being discounted prior to any assessment of the positive benefits of the re-use of this brownfield site and whether the location is sufficiently sustainable or can be made sustainable.
Specifically, in relation to this site, it is already serviced by water, sewerage and electricity so sufficient infrastructure is already available. Residents of the site would have opportunities to make sustainable journeys on foot, by cycle and by car-sharing. The unnamed road outside the site frontage is classified as a Public Bridleway; accommodating pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. This provides a pleasant walking route between the site and village of Ingrave. There are also a number of Public Footpaths in the vicinity of the site which provide access to nearby towns and villages such as Brentwood, Shenfield and Billericay which offer a wider range of local amenities. The nearest school is approximately 1.5 miles walking distance and the site is approximately 2 miles from the station at Shenfield, soon to accommodate Crossrail.
Paragraph 103 of the NPPF acknowledges that:
"opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision taking.'
Paragraph 102 also states that:
'Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that c) opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued.'
Figure 4.2 of the Plan sets out how different types of land use will contribute to how the overall housing need will be met. The Plan's spatial strategy is unsound because it excluded all sites which do not meet the distance thresholds from existing settlements, and has not fully taken into account opportunities offered by smaller sites in the Green Belt, which could offer sustainable transport modes, and make a small but important contribution to meeting housing need.
In light of the higher housing numbers required, the Plan should be revised to re-assess all sites which do not meet the distance thresholds from existing settlements, and to take into account opportunities offered by smaller sites in the Green Belt, which could offer sustainable transport modes, and make a small but important contribution to meeting housing need.
We wish to participate in the Examination to set out the case that a further assessment of sites is required, and the opportunity should be taken to re-assess sites which were previously excluded.


RE Spatial Strategy
The draft Plan relies on the delivery of strategic sites, to meet a significant proportion of its housing requirement. Figure 4.2 of the Plan identifies that the Dunton Hills Garden Village strategic allocation will provide 35% of the total housing requirement. We note that in the Regulation 18 document, three strategic sites were proposed; this has now increased to five.
We object to the strategy relying on several large developments to deliver such a large proportion of growth for the Borough, particularly within the first five years from adoption. As set out in Appendix 1, this strategy results in the delivery of no new housing in the early years of the Plan.
Paragraph 68 of the NPPF notes that:
'Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.'

The Plan should be reviewed and sites identified to meet the higher housing number of 547 dwellings per annum, through the addition of smaller site allocations. Smaller sites are more deliverable over the early years of the Plan period since they typically require less investment in infrastructure, are within single ownership and have fewer complex issues to address at planning application stage. This is in contrast to larger strategic sites which are often reliant on significant infrastructure improvements, comprise multiple ownerships, require complex legal agreements and typically take much longer to deliver.
Allocating additional smaller sites will have multiple benefits; it will increase the flexibility of the Plan, it will contribute to the five year housing land supply, it will enable sites which do not require significant infrastructure provision to come forward quickly, and it will attract smaller house building companies who will not be present upon larger strategic sites.
To set out the case that the Plan should allocate additional, smaller sites, to improve the flexibility of the Plan, to ensure that the Plan complies with the NPPF, and to enable the Plan to deliver homes throughout the Plan period.

The Pre-Submission Document relies very heavily on the Dunton Hills Strategic Allocation. If it were not accepted, or only partially accepted, a review of all the Plan's allocations would be needed and alternatives, like our client's site at Pilgrims Hatch, be reconsidered to make up the deficit.

Figure 4.2 sets out a total net new homes requirement of 7800 of which 6100 will be met on new land allocations. One strategic allocation, Dunton Hills Garden Village, accounts for 2700 or 44% of the total allocations. The Plan is therefore heavily dependent on the ability of this site to deliver within what remains of the Plan period, which is 12 years.
The Document's Appendix 1: Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory, notes a potential delivery start in 2022/23. This means the allocation will need to deliver 2700 homes over a nine year period, an annual build rate of 300, around the build rate for the whole District predicted during the Plan's first six years.
The 2018 consultation on the Preferred Sites Document said that delivery at Dunton Hills would start by 2021/2022. 2500 homes would be delivered over 10 years, a build rate of 250 per year.
The logical conclusion is that the longer it takes for the emerging Local Plan to be adopted, the shorter the time and the higher the build rate will need to be. The LDP Timetable suggests that adoption will be in Quarter 3 of this year. We believe adoption will more likely happen in Quarter 1 next year or beyond. This will squeeze delivery at Dunton Hills into an eight-year period with a resulting annual build rate requirement of nearly 340.
In commenting on the Preferred Sites Document in 2018, we referred to research carried out by Nathaniel Lichfield and Partnership on delivery from large housing sites. Their report calculated the average planning approval time for sites of 2000 or more dwellings was 6.1 years. The 'planning approval period' was calculated as the time between the validation date of the first application for the proposed development to the decision date of the first detailed application which permits the development of dwellings on site.
We believe the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory's figures for Dunton Hills Garden Village are based more on wish fulfillment, rather than solid evidence of achievable build rates.
The Dunton Hills Garden Village proposal remains locally controversial. A number of local newspaper articles, published during 2018, highlight opposition to the proposal from two neighbouring Local Planning Authorities: Basildon Borough Council and Thurrock District Council.
Your Thurrock in an article dated 29 October 2018 quotes Thurrock as saying :
"The location does not have any public transport such as a railway station or other infrastructure or services compared to existing settlements", adding that the development will have "a much greater negative impact on the landscape than stated".
The same article quotes Basildon Borough Council as follows:
"The proposals in Basildon and Brentwood Boroughs could, without careful planning and site allocation choices, lead to settlement coalescence and inadequate access to appropriate infrastructure, which in turn could have implications on the amount of development that can be brought forward in this location on both sides of the boundary."
Basildon's website says that Dunton Garden Suburb:
"... was a potential cross-boundary development opportunity to the west of Laindon (Basildon Borough) and east of West Horndon (Brentwood Borough) for 4,000 to 6,000 homes."
It goes on to say:
"On 4 November 2014, Basildon Borough Council and Brentwood Borough Council each signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) setting out the terms and conditions for the joint project to explore Dunton Garden Suburb in accordance with Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011, also referred to as the Duty to Cooperate. It expired on 4 February 2016 and has not been renewed."
Brentwood Borough Council's Dunton Hills webpage makes no reference to the expiration of the MOU, neither does it record any further progress with the project following January 2018's Preferred Sites consultation. CEG is the company promoting the Dunton Hills project; their website relating to the proposal is currently a holding page.
The Emerging Basildon Local Plan shows no proposals relating to the Dunton Hills project on its side of the border. Instead it shows the whole area as Metropolitan Green Belt land.
All the above indicates that there has been a lack of cross-border cooperation on the Dunton Hills proposed land allocation since 2016.
We believe both the quantity and timing of new housing delivery from this site, set out in the Pre-Submission Document, are not soundly based. Furthermore we believe the whole project is now mired in a controversy that involves two of the Borough's local authority neighbours. This must cast doubt on whether the Duty to Cooperate has been fully followed. Therefore at present the whole project is surely in jeopardy.

Redrow Homes propose: 1- A new policy to follow on from Policy SP02, in Chapter 4 (Managing Growth): Alteration of Green Belt Boundaries The areas of land covered by the following policies are removed from the Green Belt: RO3, (and all others concerned) The Council has arrived at these alterations on the basis of a sequential examination of brownfield and other sites not in the Green Belt, of a review of densities of development and of discussions with neighbouring local authorities to test the scope for them meeting some of the need for housing arising in Brentwood. The exceptional circumstances that justify the alterations are the severe shortage of land not within the Green Belt and suitable for development, making it impossible for the Council to meet its housing need other than through limited alterations of Green Belt boundaries. The Council has selected sites for boundary alterations where there will be least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt. 2- A new line to be added in the sequential test set out in para 3.23 Using Land Sequentially and the table revised to focus on land types: - Brownfield land within urban areas - Greenfield land within urban areas - Brownfield land within the Green Belt - Greenfield land within the Green Belt 3- Policy NE13 (Site Allocations in the Green Belt) is altered as follows: These sites are de-allocated from the Green Belt to allow development to take place...4- Para 8.117 is deleted.

Site RO3, Land North of Shenfield, is allocated for development in Policy RO3 (Chapter 9), having been signposted in Policy SP02: Managing Growth. The site is currently in the Green Belt and the allocation anticipates the development of around 825 homes and associated infrastructure and facilities. The land to the east of the Chelmsford Road is in two ownerships, and both land promoters have agreed the principles of an overall master plan with Brentwood Borough Council. The Draft Local Plan anticipates that the homes will be delivered between 2023/24 and 2030/31; Redrow Homes is intending to see its portion of the new housing completed prior to this period, enabling it to contribute to the 5-Year Housing Land Supply. Redrow Homes, concerned to see its part of the Draft Plan implemented as quickly as possible, which requires the Draft Plan to be adopted equally soon, has considered the case made in the Draft Plan for the release of land from the Green Belt. However, Redrow Homes equally reserves the right to submit a planning application prior to adoption of the Local Plan given that the local authority can make a decision based on the planning merit and robust evidence base of a planning application prior to adoption of the emerging policy. In response to the Regulation 19 submission draft consideration of the Draft Plan follows in the next paragraphs. The NPPF 2018 has two main stipulations relating to alterations of Green Belt boundaries: "136. (part) Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries..." "137 (part) Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.." Examined fully all other reasonable options. The second requirement (examined fully all other reasonable options) should be conducted before the first. The Council's overall approach to site selection is described in the "Preferred Site Allocations, Site Selection Methodology and Summary of Outcomes, Working Draft, January 2018" and the approach is summarised in Figure 7 of that document and in para 3.23 of the Draft Plan. This sequential approach includes brownfield sites in the Green Belt but not greenfield sites in the Green Belt. Furthermore para 3.23 confuses a number of site selection criteria, for example proximity to transport facilities, as well as the key quality of the sites. At several points in the Draft Plan the Council has described how it went through this examination, most notably at paras 4.22-4.23 and the associated Figure 4.2, which shows that some 20% of the total new housing proposed will be located on Green Belt land. It would be helpful if this Figure could be explicitly labelled as illustrating the sequential examination. The examination is also described in paras 8.81-8.84 under the Green Belt and Rural Development heading; this passage also refers to the examination of all other reasonable options in the Sustainability Appraisal. The Council also commissioned a Green Belt Study, which assessed the contribution of potential development sites in the Green Belt to the purposes of the Green Belt; whilst there is an allusion to the results of the study in para 8.84 ("areas where the purposes of the Green Belt can still be demonstrated as being intact thereby maintaining the essential characteristics of 'openness'."), there is no direct reference to the study. Immediately after this the Draft Plan goes on to say "These exceptional circumstances have resulted in a 1% release of land from the Green Belt and have defined the need for Green Belt boundary changes in Policy SP02 Managing Growth and depicted in Figure 3.2 Growth Areas." The exceptional circumstances quoted here refer to the sequential examination of sites and to the assessment of the contribution that sites make to the purposes of the Green Belt. But the NPPF makes clear that exceptional circumstances and examination of all other reasonable options are distinct tests and exceptional circumstances won't normally be demonstrated through the sequential test alone. Equally, the issue of the impact on the purposes of the Green Belt is one of harm, not simply whether the lack of harm helps in the exceptional circumstances argument. Exceptional Circumstances The text at para 8.84 points to Policy SP02 Managing Growth as the policy that introduces the boundary changes. Policy SP02 sets out the number of dwellings for which land will be provided in the plan period and states that new development within the Borough will be directed towards (a) the site allocations in Chapter 9 and (b) highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. The policy makes no reference to Green Belt boundary changes. The text leading up to Policy SP02 explains how the Green Belt prevents the Council from identifying a five-year housing land supply, but not why land in the Green Belt is needed in order to deliver the required supply of additional housing. In Chapter 9 neither the text nor the individual allocations, for example RO3, Land north of Shenfield, a Green Belt site, make any reference to Green Belt boundary changes and their justification. Policy NE13, Site Allocations in the Green Belt, provides firstly for such sites to provide significant community benefits and secondly that: "These sites will be de-allocated from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2." The supporting text to this policy offers no justification in terms of exceptional circumstances. A short para (8.117) provides some explanation for the quoted section of the policy: "This policy also sets out the principles of removing allocated Green Belt development sites from the Green Belt. This de-allocation will allow for planning applications to be considered within the context of policies within this Plan as well as national policy and guidance." The term "will be" in the policy and the references to setting out the principles and planning applications in the supporting text make it unclear whether the Green Belt boundary changes are affected in the Draft Plan or they need to be justified by subsequent planning applications. Conclusions: Redrow Homes believe that the Draft Local Plan is not sound as it is not fully compliant with the NPPF. Comparing the Draft Local Plan with the requirements of the NPPF 2018 we conclude that: 1- The Draft Plan does not include a policy expressly changing Green Belt boundaries and justifying those changes in terms of exceptional circumstances. 2- The sequential approach adopted by the Council does not expressly include greenfield sites in the Green Belt. 3- The use of the future tense ("will be") in Policy NE13 creates a doubt as to whether Green Belt changes are introduced by the Draft Plan, when adopted, or at some later date. 4- The Draft Plan is unclear as to whether Green Belt boundary changes are being affected by the Draft Plan or they need to be justified in planning applications.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached.

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached.

remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached.

Need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound.

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

Need to review the ability of smaller or medium sized sites such as R23 and R24 to provide for greater flexibility and more homes which have a far greater prospect for short term delivery to ensure the Local Plan is sound.

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

The proposed development in Blackmore should be removed from that plan, and any necessary development should be targeted at areas with suitable infrastructure (capacity). Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the plan and the planes should refer to the BVHA neighbourhood plan which clearly sets our the Blackmore local housing needs.

Sections 9 (site allocations)
Policy R25 - 9.197-9.200
Policy R26, 9.201-9.205
Section 4 (managing growth)
Policy SP01-D(a) D (f)
Para 4.9,4.2
Policy SP02
Section 8 (natural environment
Policy NE 06, 8.5-8.8.64 - para 8.85 (iv), 8.90, 8.101
Policy NE13

Unsound
Infrastructure and resources fully stretched at present so no capacity for further development in Blackmore
Blackmore has been disproportionately targeted with a 30% increase in the current population proposed.
There must be more suitable brownfield sites within the borough that having to build on Green Belt in Blackmore
The Blackmore sites of R25 and R26 are entirely unsuitable for large scale development

Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan, refer to the Blackmore Village Heritage Association (BVHA) 'Neighbourhood Plan' for housing need.

Including the following sections:
LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement hierarchy
LDP Section 04 (management growth)
Policies:
SP01 - D
Paras 4.6 4.9 4.20
Policy SP02
Policy SP04 - A
LDP Section 06 (housing provision)
Policy HP 08

Section 08
Natural Environment
Policy NE 06 paras 8.51 -8.64
Para 8.85 (IV)
Para 8.90
Para 8.101
Policy NE13
Section 09 site allocation
Policy R25 para 9.87 -9.200
Policy R26 paras 9.201 - 9.204

I consider the plan to be unsound and fails to comply with the Duty to Cooperate for the following reasons:
1. IDP Fig 2.3 settlement hierarchy: there are errors in the plan eg the population of Blackmore is listed as 829 but this does not cover the residents in Nine Ashes Road past Red Rose Lanes and Chelmsford Road which includes a mobile home park and illegal travellers site.

2. Duty to cooperate: there has not been sufficient consultation with other neighbouring authorities. There us a development of 30 new, large houses by Epping Forest DC 100m outside the parish boundary in Fingrith Hall Lane. These properties are 1/3 miles from Blackmore Village and 5 miles from any other town/village. This will exacerbate the impact of the proposed 70 new properties being considered for Blackmore in the infrastructure and amenities.

3 Red Rose lane is a single track and not suitable for the extra volume of traffic generated by the proposed housing. It is used by walkers, joggers, cyclists; dog walkers and horseriders and has no pavement. The additional traffic will bring increased danger to these users along with the lack of street lights.

4. Flood Risk: Blackmore sites in a dip and is prone to flooding which has occurred a number of times over the years. The planned 70 homes will reduce the available land to soak up water, therefore flooding will increase.

5. Policy NE06 states that in 8.52: Developing inappropriately in high risk areas can put property and lives at risk; this policy seeks to ensure this does not happen.

6. infrastructure Requirements: There are no infrastructure requirements listed in policy R25 or R26, however all amenities and services are already stretched inc the local primary school, electricity, sewerage system, doctors surgery etc.

7. There is no clear housing strategy for the villages and general area in the north of the borough. There are many other options that have been suggested through this process but have not been considered.

8. A 'housing needs' survey should have been carried out which would have demonstrated why Blackmore has been specifically included on the LDP and why other more suitable areas have not been included.

9. The borough Council have not shown that the required additional houses for the borough could not be delivered by increasing the housing density on the other allocated sites in the plan.

10. There are brownfield sites available nearby but there is no evidence these have been considered in preference to using Green Belt land.

11. Other more suitable locations eg areas around Doddinghurst which have better transport links would have been a far better proposal that the development in Blackmore which is not a sustainable development proposal for the reasons given.

12. The proposed sites are important to wildlife and natural habitats.
Policy HP08 seeks to regularise an illegal travellers site on the Chelmsford Road. The borough Council has failed to undertake its duty to attempt to remove the travellers since they moved in some years ago. The Council has watched the site grow without taking any action!

My family moved to Blackmore 2 years ago from Epping for a quiet village life. The village does not have the capacity for 70 new homes.

The issues listed shows that the modification would be to remove sets R25 and R26 from the plan. Blackmore Village Heritage Association has produced a plan which should be referred to by the planners. The Plan sets out our local housing needs for our community.

LDP Fig 2.3 Settlement hierarchy
LDP Section 04 (management growth)
Policies:
SP01 - D
Paras 4.6 4.9 4.20
Policy SP02
Policy SP04 - A
LDP Section 06 (housing provision)
Policy HP 08
Section 08
Natural Environment
Policy NE 06 paras 8.51 -8.64; Para 8.85 (IV); Para 8.90; Para 8.101
Policy NE13
Section 09 site allocation
Policy R25 para 9.197 -9.200
Policy R26 paras 9.201 - 9.204
LPP Fig 2.3 settlement hierarchy. There are errors in the plan, population states 829 but does not include houses past Red Rose Lane or the residents in Chelmsford Road and Traveller site.
Duty to cooperate. Not enough consultation with neighbouring authorities.
Red Rose Lane is single track and wont cope with more traffic
Flood Risk
Policy NE06 Flood Risk 8.52
Infrastructure requirements - no infrastructure improvements have been listed in R25 or R25. The local school is at capacity with no room for more children.
The doctors is too at capacity, waiting times are bad already.
Electricity and services wont be able to cope with 70 extra houses.

Should consider alternative sites (not Green Belt) ideally brownfield sites
Remove R25 and R26 from the LDP plan. Refer to BHV Neighbourhood Plan which sets out local housing needs

Section 4 Policy SP01, D (a) D (f) Para 4.4; Policy SP01
Section 8 Policy NE 06, 8.5-8.64,
Section 8 Para 8.85, 8.90. 8.101; Policy NE13
Section 9 Policy R25, 9.97-9.200; Policy R26, 9.201-9.205
Local Plan, unsound, failure to consult with Epping Forest District Council. Re:- 30 houses being built on Fingrith Hall Lane which will already impact on the village
Village prone to flooding
No clear strategy for the village, no infrastructure
The school is full and not able to cope with any additional houses / families.
The preschool is full and not able to accommodate any further children at this stage, it is in the village hall with no possibility of being able to increase child number
Doctors filled to capacity. Residents already have to wait 4 weeks for a routine appointment. If additional houses are built this would make this service reach breaking point
Bus service is not sufficient enough
Wildlife destroyed
Green Belt land, unacceptable to build on
Volume of traffic would ruin village, make it unsafe for school children

The plan overall is not the issue- I am challenging policies R25 and R26/Blackmore's inclusion in the LDP solely.Please refer to the attached village survey of July 2018, which is hereby re-submitted. Blackmore Village Heritage Association will have an updated "Neighbourhood Plan" available.

Section 4
Policy SP01 - D(a), D(f)
Paragraphs 4.2and 4.9
Policy SP02

Section 08
Policy NE06 8.5-8.64
Para 8.85 (iv)
Para 8.90
Para 8.101

Policy NE13

Section 09
Policy R25, 9.197-9.200
Policy R26, 9.201-204


The plan is deficient in respect of Blackmore village and unsound on all 4 tests in particular:

1. There is no clear 'strategy ' for the villages including Blackmore, in the north of the borough.
2. BBC has not consulted adequately with Epping Forest District Council. Over houses being constructed and/or planned close to Blackmore village.
3. The principle of residential development off of Redrose Lane is wrong, Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure (The school is full, the doctors surgery is Doddinghurst is already over subscribed inadequate bus service, narrow lanes and already dangerous parking, sewerage system is overloaded already etc).
4. There are more suitable and or sustainable locations, eg urban extensions of Brentwood (eg Honeypot Lane), and the locations in Blackmore so not promote sustainable development.
5. BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the Greenfield/Green Belt land off of Redrose Lane.
6. BBC has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other (allocated) sites.
7. There has been no 'housing needs survey' to demonstrate why Blackmore village is included in the LDP.
8. The access off/from Redrose Lane is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic movements.
9. The entire village is prone to severe flooding, and sites R25 and R26 are both liable to flood. Building on this land will only increase the flood risk elsewhere in the village.
10. Both fields (R25 and R26) are teeming with wildlife - hundreds of birds nest in the hedgerows within and around the fields. We have photographic evidence (stills and videos) of certain protected species (bats, Barn Owls, Great Crested Newts).

Proposed modifications

The plan overall is not the issue- I am challenging policies R25 and R26/Blckmore's inclusion in the LDP solely.
Please refer to the attached village survey of July 2018, which is herby re-submitted.
Blackmore Village Heritage Association will have an updated "Neighbourhood Plan" available.

Why attend Examination in person?
As Chairman of he "Blackmore Village Heritage Association", I wish to present our own vision for our village based on what Blackmore actually needs.
There will be a form of "Neighbourhood Plan" available, which will significantly update the attached village survey dated 2018.

The Blackmore sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the plan until there has been 1. A full housing need survey for Blackmore; 2. A proper consultation, including BBC taking into account alternative sites; 3. A properly formulated strategy from BBC in relation to protecting the heritage and character of the villages within the Borough

See attached.
Section 4
Policy SP01 - D(a), D(f)
Paragraphs 4.2and 4.9
Policy SP02

Section 08
Policy NE06 8.5-8.64
Para 8.85 (iv)
Para 8.90
Para 8.101

Policy NE13

Section 09
Policy R25, 9.197-9.200
Policy R26, 9.201-204

The Plan is unsound because it fails to comply with the requirements set out in the National Planning
Policy Framework ("NPPF") para 35 as follows:
a) It has not been properly prepared:
* Brentwood Borough Council ("BBC') has failed to objectively assess the area's housing
needs in particular in reference to the proposed development of housing in the village of
Blackmore (Site Policy Numbers R25 and R26.
* The Blackmore Sites suddenly appeared in the draft plan in January 2018 but had not
been in the earlier drafts of the plan which were consulted on during the course of 2016.
* No clear strategy for the villages in the Borough has been consulted on publicly, nor has
there been any consultation evidenced with the bordering Local Authorities (Epping
Forest DC and Chelmsford City Council), whose boundaries both adjoin Blackmore Parish and whose residents' needs directly impact Blackmore Village in respect of housing
provision, transport and other services. For example, there is already a development of
30 houses (approved by Epping Forest, without any evidence of consultation with BBC or
Blackmore Parish Council) in progress at the top of Fingrith Hall Road which will impact
the infrastructure, amenities and other facilities of Blackmore.
* No evidence has been provided in the Local Development Plan of how these
developments have been assessed to be sustainable in light of the impact the BBC
proposals, plus the Epping Forest development and how they will impact the local
infrastructure and character of the village of Blackmore.
b) It is not justified on the following grounds:
* There has been no evidence put forward by BBC, such as a local housing need
assessment for the village of Blackmore which would justify expanding the village
housing stock by around a third. There has been no consultation in the village of its
housing needs. In or around 2016 or 2017 there was a local meeting arranged to review if affordable housing was required in the village. This proposal was abandoned
due to the negative feedback from villagers.
* The BBC have failed to consider other more suitable locations for development which
would not (a) encroach and irrevocably damage greenbelt land (contrary to Section
13 of the NPPF) (b) negatively impact the character, rural nature and restricted
amenities on offer in the village of Blackmore and (c) would make use of existing
suitable infrastructure and amenities, such as Brownfield sites, or sites with public
transport and those other existing sites in the plan where the local infrastructure
could easily bear an increased density in numbers of housing
* No proportionate evidence (or any at all) has been included in the plan to justify the
proposed developments in Blackmore or how issues such as access to these proposed
sites which are serviced currently by small narrow lanes or how other local
infrastructure such as drainage, increased traffic flow on what are narrow country
roads around Blackmore, schools, doctors surgeries will be dealt with.
c)
It is not consistent with national policy:
*
It does not enable the delivery of sustainable development as the proposed
developments in Blackmore village as the infrastructure will not support an increase in
traffic on the single track roads and lack of parking at the school and village shop, school
places in a school that is already at capacity with a large waiting list, additional pressure
on the already crowded only doctor's surgery in Doddinghurst.
* Under the NPPF section 13 conservation of the Green Belt is set out and the Plan states that the BBC "will continue to resist strongly pressure to allow development in these clusters". The proposal to grow what is a historic, rural village such as Blackmore by a third is not consistent with either the national policy of keeping greenbelt land open and BBC's own policy to avoid irrevocable damage to the character of the Green Belt.

Sites R2S and R26 should be removed from the LDP. Blackmore Village Heritage Association in cooperation with the local Parish Councils will be producing a local needs plan that will look at the actual needs within the local area for what is already a sustainable community rather than producing a plan that Just seeks to help the Borough Council meet its housing quota, and planners should instead refer to this and produce an updated plan In cooperation with the local community.

Section 4 (Managing Growth)
Paragraphs 4.9, 4.20
Policy SP02
Section 8 (Natural Environment)
Policy NE06-8.51-8.64
Paragraphs 8.85, 8.90, 8.101
Policy NE13
Section 9 (Site Allocations)
Allocation R25 - paragraphs 9.197-9.200
Allocation R26- paragraphs 9.201-9.204

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 Fingrlth 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 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 LOP 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
one village-this appears to contradict paragraph 8.101. There ls 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 ls already fully subscribed and the local doctor's surgery (which
Is located In Doddinghurst) ls 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 Fingrlth 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 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 polices.

Sites R2S and R26 should be removed from the LDP. Blackmore Village Heritage Association in
cooperation with the local Parish Councils will be producing a local needs plan that will look at the
actual needs within the local area for what is already a sustainable community rather than producing
a plan that Just seeks to help the Borough Council meet its housing quota, and planners should
instead refer to this and produce an updated plan In cooperation with the local

All of the points should be reassessed with local involvement.
Blackmore does need some small scale development especially for the older population. Downsizing would be an option that would free up existing larger properties.

The plan Is unsound.
a) There has been no evidence produced to show that there is a need for this size of development in Blackmore
b) There has been no discussion or cooperation with any local bodies 30 houses have just been built just outside the village In EFDC area that will Impact on the village
c) There are many aspects that do not comply with the NPPF Guidance.
Protection of Green Belt
Development located to minimize travel
Local community not consulted
No proven local need
All of the above points should be reassessed with local involvement.
Blackmore does need some small scale development especially for the older population. Downsizing would be an option that would free up existing larger properties.

Should consider alternative sites , not Green Belt, ideally brownfield sites. Remove R25 and R26 form plan. Refer to BVHA neighbourhood plan which sets out local housing need

There is no clear 'strategy ' for the villages including Blackmore, in the north of the borough. BBC has not consulted adequately with Epping Forest District Council. Over houses being constructed and/or planned close to Blackmore village. The principle of residential development off of Redrose Lane is wrong, Blackmore is an isolated village with modest services and infrastructure (The school and preschool is full, the doctors surgery is Doddinghurst is already over subscribed, inadequate bus service, narrow lanes and already dangerous parking, sewerage system is overloaded already etc). There are more suitable and or sustainable locations, eg urban extensions of Brentwood (eg Honeypot Lane), and the locations in Blackmore so not promote sustainable development. BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the Greenfield/Green Belt land off of Redrose Lane. BBC has failed to demonstrate that the required housing could not be met by increasing housing density on other (allocated) sites. There has been no 'housing needs survey' to demonstrate why Blackmore village is included in the LDP. The access off/from Redrose Lane is entirely unsuitable for this volume of traffic movements. The entire village is prone to severe flooding, and sites R25 and R26 are both liable to flood. Building on this land will only increase the flood risk elsewhere in the village.