BBC need to complete the transport modelling, in order to clearly illustrate the site specific, local and cumulative impacts of the Local Plan growth, and identify any infrastructure and/or mitigation measures which would be required, together with costings and phasing.

BBC (together with ECC) need the confidence, and assurance that it can identify up-front the required developer funded transport mitigation measures, and that such mitigation measures are covered within the Local Plan site allocation policies and accounted for in both viability and IDP work.

1. Positively prepared
2. Justified
3. Effective
4. Consistent with National Policy.

In line with paragraph 31 of the NPPF, a Local Plan needs to be supported by transport modelling that clearly illustrates the site specific, local and cumulative impacts of the Local Plan growth, and identifies any infrastructure and/or mitigation measures which would be required, together with costings and phasing.

ECC as Highway Authority (including BBC as the Local Planning Authority) need the confidence, and assurance that it can identify up-front the required developer funded transport mitigation measures, and that such mitigation measures are covered within the Local Plan site allocation policies and accounted for in both viability and IDP work.

It should be noted that as BBC have their own highway consultants, rather than ECC. This requires ECC as the Highway Authority to check outputs to confirm its satisfaction, and to ensure the mitigation measures are identified and accounted for.

Following the BBC's 2018 consultation, BBC and ECC have held meetings with BBC's transport consultants (PBA) to help progress the additional work needed to be undertaken to address the full range of issues previously raised.

BBC has published a note from PBA (dated 30th January 2019) as part of their evidence base for this consultation, which sets out the transport work that is still outstanding.

ECC confirms that these matters are being discussed and ECC will continue to work with BBC to address these matters. Once this work is completed and verified by ECC, BBC will need to publish a revised and consolidated transport assessment as part of the Plan's evidence base.

ECC as Highway Authority cannot, at this stage, endorse the transport evidence as it is incomplete, and this is required to inform the IDP which shows mitigation, costs and phasing.

It is recommended that specific additional evidence base required includes:
* A more fully developed transport evidence base that includes cumulative and site specific impacts of development on the local and strategic highway network and to identify further infrastructure and /or mitigation measures required together with costing and phasing;
* An up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) that includes infrastructure costs, phasing, delivery and viability.

Despite the need for further clarification on the transport network impacts, there is an opportunity to work collaboratively on the plan to deliver sustainable transport measures that will benefit Thurrock. The Southern Growth Corridor includes measures as the West Horndon New Transport Interchange, a new multi-modal interchange at West Horndon Station that could also serve Northern Thurrock developments. Cycle routes on this part of the plan can also be connected with Thurrock's network.

Sustainable Transport and Transport Policies

Whilst Thurrock Council supports in principle the overall aims of the sustainable transport Policies in the Brentwood Pre-Submission Local Plan (Regulation 19) it is concerned about the realism and practical deliverability of this approach.

Both the Brentwood Pre-Submission Local Plan and the IDP refer to ongoing work with other stakeholders or further evidence being required. There is insufficient information in the plan policies and supporting test about the actual schemes and measures that are required to deliver such an overall transport strategy. Although additional information is provided on schemes in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) it is still considered there is not enough evidence in terms of the transport measures; their costs and phasing to support the proposals in the Local Plan including at Dunton Hills Garden Village.

Generally, there seems to be insufficient information to support the change in travel behaviour that is needed to support the ambition and policies of the local plan. More information is needed in relation to sustainable travel initiatives, cost of implementation/operation (where relevant) and, importantly, how residents and commuters will be encouraged and empowered to use and embrace the suggested sustainable travel initiatives. It is unlikely that simply delivering more cycle routes, cycle parking provision, EV charging etc will result in the required increase in sustainable modes of travel, without some form of behavioural change provision. It is unclear how the suggested improvements to walking, cycling, public transport and EVs will deliver meaningful benefit if they are not supported by a package of behaviour change components which set out and support the need to use sustainable travel options.

It is encouraging to note in the IDP that the travel survey data which identifies the levels of travel to work by train and those travelling to work driving by car or van. However, it is also noted that cycling, walking and bus travel to work are lower in Brentwood than the East of England. Promotion of walking and cycling is recognized in the plan through extending the Public Rights of Way network and the introduction of strategic walking and cycling routes for new sites.

Thurrock Council would suggest that more can be done to ensure that, where possible, these should be connected with the wider network, including Thurrock's network, especially on the south corridor.

While it is encouraging that the plan identifies the need to maximise the value of railway connectivity through improvements to the train stations in the borough, there is need for more clarity in terms of measures, costs and phasing of works.

The A12 widening and delivery of Crossrail will bring about significant increased capacity and accessibility improvements to transport infrastructure for Brentwood in the A12 Broad Corridor during the later-part of the plan period. This will make the A12 Corridor broad area more suitable for development opportunities. It is considered there is insufficient information on the benefits of Crossrail or the transport measures that should be provided if such an option is pursued.

The plan recognises that there has been no major relief, gyratory or one-way system within the town centre, and that traffic continues to be funnelled into a road system that has not significantly changed for many years. Additional AQ monitoring data should be included. It would also be beneficial to understand how the sustainable travel initiatives, identified within the plan, will deliver AQ and health benefits.

Transport Technical evidence
The Modelling description provided within the Transport and Movement section is somewhat vague. It mentions three scenarios: Base Case (observed data), Reference Case (background growth) and Local Plan Growth (adding on trips associated with the Local Plan proposals); and the use of spreadsheet model. However, there is no mention of data collection (source, year, etc.), only the use of digital road network for Essex with flows and speed at the links. It is considered that additional data collection is needed to inform the plan.
For trip distribution and assignment models, there is no mention of the software of procedure used. This information is also omitted from the junction models, although it is noted that this may be contained in supporting documentation elsewhere.

The evidence lists junctions that are "under stress", but it is not clear if this means that the junctions are saturated. There is no additional detail as to what level of stress or saturation is experienced. Therefore it is difficult to understand the extent of the existing or future issues that might be experienced.

For the junctions that are listed, there is no mention of problems in the Base Case (level of services, delays, speeds, etc.) or the expected impact for the Local Plan Growth scenario. It is suggested that additional work is needed here.

Thurrock Council suggests that additional work is needed in relation to the breakdown of costs and phasing of delivery. Again, without this information, it is difficult to understand the impact on the wider network and Thurrock area.

Despite the need for further clarification on the transport network impacts, there is an opportunity to work collaboratively on the plan to deliver sustainable transport measures that will benefit Thurrock. The Southern Growth Corridor includes measures as the West Horndon New Transport Interchange, a new multi-modal interchange at West Horndon Station that could also serve Northern Thurrock developments. Cycle routes on this part of the plan can also be connected with Thurrock's network.

1.0 Introduction
1. These representations have been prepared by Navigus Planning on behalf of West Horndon Parish Council ('the Parish Council') in respect of the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation ('the Reg 19 Plan').
2. The principal matter that these representations address is the allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (Policy RO1) and specifically the soundness of that allocation, as required by paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In particular, the Parish Council is of the opinion that the Reg 19 Plan has not been justified because it hasn't been based on appropriate and proportionate evidence and is not consistent with national policy.
3. It is important to make clear that the Parish Council supports the allocation of the land at West Horndon Industrial Estate (Policy RO2) for residential, care home and appropriate employment uses.
2.0 Previous representations
4. The Parish Council's representations dated 22nd March 2016 to the Draft Local Plan raised a number of issues. It is the opinion of the Parish Council that the points made have not been addressed; indeed very little has changed in the Reg 19 Plan in light of representations made by any parties. The Parish Council wishes therefore to make clear that the representations it made on the Draft Local Plan are still outstanding and still represent matters that require addressing for the Reg 19 Plan to be considered to be sound.
3.0 Transport strategy
5. The spatial strategy in the Reg 19 Plan focuses on three main driving forces, one of which is 'Transit-oriented Growth'. Paragraph 3.11 notes that one of its 'connectivity axes' is the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station. It states that:
"Focusing growth along these axes will ensure that future development is sustainable, maximising the benefits of transport infrastructure. While some investment to improve the transport network will be inevitable, this growth strategy ensures economies of scale are reached, with the critical mass of development making it more viable for such investment to occur."
6. Whilst it is questionable as to whether growth along a road corridor can ever constitute sustainable development given the detrimental effects of increased car use on climate change and air pollution, the stated principle is supported. However, the Parish Council has concerns that the spatial strategy which is then presented fails to adequately justify or demonstrate what improvements are going to be needed to the transport network and whether the costs - which have not been properly scoped out - can be addressed by investment which can reasonably be expected to come from development and other sources. In this regard, it is important to be clear that Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor to support increased movement by all modes. Yet the Reg 19 Plan fails to properly consider this.
3.1 Road infrastructure
7. In answering the question 'What key issues should be considered in developing the transport evidence base to support the Local Plan?', national Planning Practice Guidance states that one such key issue is the need to, "consider the cumulative impacts of existing and proposed development on transport networks" (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 54-003-20141010).
8. The Transport Assessment which accompanies the Reg 19 Plan is the key piece of transport evidence used to demonstrate that the spatial strategy and growth proposed in the Plan can be supported by the strategic and local highway network. It includes a Reference Case Model which, as is stated in the Executive Summary, "...includes trips developments within neighbouring authorities, as well as additional background trips associated with population growth predictions for future years." Therefore, as far as the A127 Corridor is concerned, the Reference Case only considers the wider impact of growth in Basildon and Thurrock districts but excludes growth in Castle Point, Rochford or Southend-on-Sea. In considering what baseline information should inform a transport assessment, national Planning Practice Guidance states:
"The transport assessment should be produced at a Local Plan level in partnership with all relevant transport and planning authorities, transport providers and key stakeholders, for example, the Local Economic Partnership. It may be appropriate for the transport assessment to cover an area wider than the Local Plan at least initially given the size of some travel to work areas (this would be similar to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment). This process should help to identify any potential measures that may be required to mitigate negative impacts." (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 54-005-20141010)
9. In this regard, the Brentwood Transport Assessment fails to fully take into account the impacts of traffic coming from the eastern parts of the Corridor. The impact of this omission is demonstrated by other work which has assessed the wider impacts. Indeed, the Transport Assessment states that it takes account of the A127 Economic Plan , published in 2014. It states that paragraph 1.2.5 that:
"Where information is available, this has been used to inform the modelling. The final outcomes from the study are not yet known and continued joint working with ECC [Essex County Council] and other neighbouring authorities will be important, so any outcomes from this study can feed through to the corridor study and consideration given to demonstrate this within a Statement of Common Ground with the highway authorities and neighbouring authorities."
Map 1: Summary of transport impacts of 2014 Economic Plan modelling along A127 Corridor
[Please find the map in attached document]
10. Whilst the Brentwood Transport Assessment focuses on specific junctions and the requirements of growth in the Local Plan and neighbouring districts, the 2014 Economic Plan assesses flows along sections of the A127 from Southend to the M25. In this regard it is more explicitly considering the number of vehicles on the A127 during peak periods and how this affects the flow of traffic. Figure 1 in the Economic Plan (shown in Map 1 above) notes that, almost along its entirety, the A127 is close to or above capacity. Figure 2 (also shown in Map 1) notes that, with the planned growth which informed the modelling, it would be above capacity for almost its entire length. Moreover, the entire stretch from Rayleigh through to the M25 would be between 28% and 50% above capacity. It is clear that, as assessed in the 2014 Economic Plan, significant mitigation would be required along the A127 to address the levels of growth fed into the modelling.
11. Since this time, the levels of growth being planned for, or required to be planned for, in the A127 Corridor authorities, has increased substantially from those used to inform the 2014 Economic Plan. Table 1 shows that, based on emerging local plans or objectively assessed need figures, the growth levels being planned for have increased by 88% compared with the 2014 position:
Table 1: Comparison of growth used to inform 2014 transport modelling and current levels of growth being planned for
[Please find table 1 in attached document]
12. If the 2014 Forecast Congestion Reference showed that the A127 would be significantly above capacity, then the near doubling of growth is likely to result in a significant worsening of this position. The outputs of the Brentwood Transport Assessment, whilst acknowledging the importance of the A127 Economic Plan work which it notes is still ongoing, fail to take into account this evidence.
13. It should be noted that this analysis does not take into account the impacts of either the Lower Thames Crossing or proposed employment growth over the plan period.
14. It is the view of the Parish Council that the Transport Assessment is not sufficiently robust to take into account the cumulative impacts of planned growth on the A127, as required by National Planning Practice Guidance.
15. When looking in isolation at the results of the Transport Assessment in respect of the potential solution to mitigate congestion at the A127/A128 Brentwood Road/A128 Tilbury Road junction serving Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and East Horndon Hall allocation, it is noted that paragraph 9.4.8 summarises the results as follows:
"During the PM peak, however, the arm shows a degree of saturation of 95%, although this is over capacity, the operation of this junction has improved significantly."
16. Whilst it is not disputed that the identified mitigation will improve the position, the fact is that the junction will still be over-capacity. When it is borne in mind that the wider impacts of growth along the A127 Corridor have not been taken into account, then the degree to which it will be over-capacity is certain to increase. A strategy predicated on growth which, despite a focus on sustainable transport, results in road junctions being over capacity, is not sustainable.
17. The Transport Assessment identifies a total of 8 junctions that require significant mitigation across the borough. The Brentwood Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) schedule gives a 'headline estimate' of £4m to address local highway network improvements. The Parish Council considers it extremely unlikely that it will cost an average of just £0.5m per junction to put in place the necessary mitigation measures at these junctions. Moreover, as is noted in paragraph 10.5.3 of the Transport Assessment, "Requirements for each of the proposals was identified and any physical constraints identified, no investigation to land ownership or costs involving the moving of Statutory Undertakers and Utility Apparatus was undertaken."
18. As Map 1 showed, the forecast delays on the A127 are significant and our analysis shows that these have been informed by growth figures well below those that are being planned for. It is not only mitigation at junctions which is required but solutions to expand capacity on the A127 itself. The degree to which individual junction improvements will mitigate the impact of the overall volume of traffic on the A127 at peak period is likely to be limited. At page 11 of the A127 Corridor for Growth Study states that, "The number of side-roads and accesses along the A127 tend to restrict any benefit from traditional capacity improvement measures, such as additional lanes." Therefore it is not considered likely that such solutions will be possible.
19. The need to address the significant strategic impacts of growth along the A127 has been recognised through the establishment of an A127 Economic Growth Corridor Task Force in November 2018. As is noted in its launch presentation, options for consideration include re-trunking of the road and the Group has had "positive discussions with Highways England and the Department for Transport" on this. If successful, this would open up opportunities for funding through the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS). This highlights a key point, namely that the current A127 does not qualify for RIS funding. Once the true cost of mitigation of the junctions along the A127 to address Local Plan growth has fully taken into account the cost of land acquisition and utilities, the bill is likely to be much higher than the 'headline' £4m and will require funding from other sources. In this regard, the decision over whether the A127 is re-trunked becomes critical to the delivery of the growth strategy, not only for the Brentwood Reg 19 Plan but for the emerging local plans of the other authorities along the route. At this stage, no progress has been made in this regard therefore this cannot be part of the evidence base which justifies the deliverability of the proposals in the Reg 19 Plan along the A127 Corridor.
20. Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that:
"In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans...it should be ensured that... any significant impacts from the development on...highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree."
21. The Transport Assessment only makes a single mention of highway safety, at paragraph 1.2.5, referring to the A127 Corridor for Growth Study by stating that:
"... there are individual pieces of work which are currently at various stages of planning and development, which are focussed on interchange capacity and/or safety improvements. Where information is available, this has been used to inform the modelling."
22. Page 11 of the A127 Study states that:
"The collisions caused by being an over-capacity road are not simple to address...The junctions identified as being problematic are the A128 Halfway House, B148 Dunton, A132 Nevendon and the A176 Upper Mayne junctions".
23. These are the junctions that are critical to the delivery of the DHGV and East Horndon Hall allocation (which, as an employment allocation, will create significant levels of HGV traffic accessing the junction) yet the evidence base to consider not only capacity but highway safety has not been adequately completed or aligned.
3.2 Sustainable transport movement
24. The transit-oriented growth strategy that underpins the Reg 19 Plan relies heavily on rail, and to a lesser extent, bus cycling and walking infrastructure, to reduce levels of car use by effecting modal shift for as many journeys as possible. In many respects, the success of the strategy is predicated on this modal shift yet nowhere in the evidence base does it suggest what the required increases in rail and bus patronage, cycling and walking are.
25. In assessing sustainable modes of travel, the Transport Assessment makes reference to Department for Transport (DfT) evidence on travel plans variously from 2005, 2007 and 2010, much of which based its outputs on data gathered between 2004 and 2008. These are extremely dated evidence sources framed within a totally different historical policy context, so to rely on them to support a plan being consulted on in 2019 lacks credibility. Even if one does take the lessons learned from this historical evidence, it is clear that the ability to affect significant modal shift in Brentwood borough is expected by the Transport Assessment to be very limited. Paragraph 7.3.9 of the Transport Assessment states that, "This seems a proportionate and pragmatic approach and the reduction in trips is at a level which should be achievable in the future in the context of the modelling". It then presents in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 the assumed numbers of car driver trips once 'sustainable measures' have been applied. In summary:
* In the morning peak, there would be a reduction of 239 car driver trips out of a total of 22,499 trips (1.06%)
* In the evening peak there would be a reduction of 194 car driver trips out of a total of 22,484 trips (0.86%)
26. This is not considered to represent a sustainable movement strategy therefore the Reg 19 Plan cannot be considered to be justified because it does not represent a reasonable strategy.
27. We now consider each of the sustainable transport modes in turn, as far as they relate to growth at DHGV and West Horndon.
3.3 Rail infrastructure
28. The transit-oriented growth strategy that underpins the Reg 19 Plan relies heavily on the rail network to enable the increased resident and worker population to travel by train. It recognises that a significant proportion of people commute out to London on the rail network every day (Figure 3.7 in the IDP notes that the proportion of residents in Brentwood commuting by rail is high).
29. A key part of the strategy focuses on West Horndon station, with the strategy expecting the new residents in West Horndon and DHGV to use this station when travelling by train. Figure 3.8 in the IDP summarises the number of users of the station over the period 2010 to 2015. It then states at paragraph 3.38 that, "West Horndon Station's growth levels are very modest." This may be true as far as entries and exits to and from the station when compared with other stations on the Anglian mainline (Shenfield, Ingatestone, Brentwood and Chelmsford) but this makes no acknowledgement of how busy the train are. As is shown by the photo in Figure 1, the C2C trains serving West Horndon during the morning peak at present are heavily congested:
Figure 1: Photo of typical train congestion on London-bound trains from West Horndon station in the morning peak, March 2019
[Please find the photo in attached document]
30. Local commuters report that trains arriving between 06.54 and 09.02 always have standing room only. In total this includes 9 trains which travel to London Fenchurch Street Station each morning. It is clear that a growth strategy predicated on increased train usage requires an increase in the capacity of the trains on the London, Tilbury and Southend line to London Fenchurch Street Station. This is endorsed by the Transport Assessment which, when considering the West Horndon public transport interchange at the station, states at paragraph 7.2.26 that:
"An increased capacity on the existing train service will be central to the new cycling, walking and bus movements of the new residents and employees accessing the four sites."
31. Despite this, there are no identified plans for investment in increased passenger rail capacity on this line and no suggestion in the Reg 19 Plan or the evidence base as to the scale of improvements required. Whilst the expansion of the interchange at West Horndon station is welcomed, this of itself will not increase capacity on the rail network. The national Planning Practice Guidance addresses what baseline information should inform a transport assessment of a Local Plan. It notes that this should include an assessment of, "accessibility of transport nodes such as rail/bus stations to facilitate integrated solutions" (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 54-005-20141010). This includes their accessibility by rail, which is particularly important given the reliance on linked trips by rail passengers seeking to access DHGV (by bus, cycling or on foot). Yet the evidence supporting the Reg 19 Plan does not provide this.
3.4 Cycling and walking infrastructure
32. The national Planning Practice Guidance requires a transport assessment to consider whether it should establish 'future predicted trips' in respect of walking and cycling facilities and movements. Given the Reg 19 Plan strategy is for a key non-vehicular movement corridor to be between DHGV and West Horndon, this must be part of the Transport Assessment as it is important to understand the modal share that such trips are expected to account for. Yet none of the evidence provides any suggestion as to what proportion of journeys between these two locations is expected to be by non-vehicular modes. This is crucial to the success of the strategy because West Horndon is a key transport interchange and DHGV is the planned location for all new education provision to serve the growth in pupils from West Horndon.
33. Equally, Figure 3.5 in the IDP notes the scale of the challenge - between 2001 and 2011 cycling to work by Brentwood residents fell and was the second lowest in Essex. It is unclear what the strategy is to increase modal share by bicycle. Not only does the Reg 19 Plan not identify specific routes but it does not make clear how cyclists would navigate across key junctions safely. This is critical because it is well established that one of the main reasons why levels of cycling in England remain low is because of safety concerns. An off-road route will encourage people but if that route doesn't provide safe passage across heavily-trafficked junctions, then people will not cycle.
34. The Reg 19 Plan provides no suggestion that such a route has been properly considered or that it has been secured. The costs identified in the IDP schedule therefore cannot be verified because the evidence does not demonstrate how they have been derived. However, with dedicated cycle routes in the order of 3km required to link West Horndon station into and through DHGV, an allowance of £1.8m for walkways and cycleways appears to be a gross under-estimate if a meaningful and required increase in cycling and walking is to be achieved.
35. The lack of certainty is reinforced by the IDP schedule referring into to 'feasibility studies' in respect of a green bridge (over the A127) and pedestrian underpass (under the A128). Whilst a 'headline estimate' cost is provided, it is not clear how the strategy would be delivered if the feasibility studies determined that one or both of these schemes could not be delivered.
36. As noted above, it is vital to the sustainability of the Reg 19 Plan strategy that as many short journeys as possible between West Horndon and DHGV are undertaken by non-vehicular modes. Given that all the proposed primary school provision to serve the growth at West Horndon will be provided at DHGV, then maximising the potential for children to walk and cycle to school is vital. In this regard, the need for safe and direct routes increases in importance. Very few primary school-aged children are going to walk or cycle on routes which are not separated from vehicular traffic and equally, very few children are going to walk more than one kilometre to school, irrespective of the quality of the route. It is a significant concern to the Parish Council that without a clear and credible plan for developing walking and cycling linkages between West Horndon and DHGV, then the reality is that many parents will choose to take primary school-aged children to school by car. This will exacerbate the congestion at school drop-off and pick-up time in West Horndon, with some parents travelling by car to West Horndon Primary School and others leaving West Horndon to access schools in DHGV.
4.0 Flooding
37. The Parish Council, in its representations on the Draft Local Plan in March 2016, addressed concerns relating to flood risk and the impact of flooding on West Horndon. We do not seek to reiterate those points here.
38. The Brentwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2018 identifies that large sections of the area around West Horndon, including the land to the east which connects it to the DHGV site, are considered to be high risk flood areas. This is demonstrated on the ground in West Horndon, with areas regularly lying under water and, at Christmas in both 2012 and 2013, subject to major flood events (see photos below).
[please find the photos in attached document]
39. In light of this and the fact that these events are occurring with increasing regularity (and scientific evidence making clear that a major cause of this is climate change), it is considered vital that a precautionary approach is taken to considering the impact of flooding, not least because of the scale of growth proposed at DHGV as well as the significant amount of employment development proposed at East Horndon Hall (Policy E13).
40. The likely implications of climate change on flooding are only starting to be realised. In fact, on 28th February 2019, the Environment Agency published a new report which looked at the likely impacts over the long term . This is based on more recent mapping data (2018) than is included in the flood risk mapping used to inform the evidence base for the Reg 19 Plan. It identifies that there are more places where new investment is not going to be cost effective and therefore, as a purely economic issue, more money will be needed to provide better flood mitigation infrastructure in more places. So whilst evidence from the local community may be anecdotal, it is based on observation over a long period of time and aligns with the evidence in the Environment Agency report that the threats are more widespread than the current evidence suggests.
41. One such example where this is considered to be the case is the proposed East Horndon Hall allocation. This field is observed to frequently be flooded and therefore there are significant concerns that the flood mitigation required for this site alone will be significant. The cumulative impacts of this site and the neighbouring DHGV site are therefore considered likely to be significant and the evidence used to inform the Reg 19 Plan has not fully and properly considered this.
42. The Reg 19 Plan is not accompanied by a Level 2 SFRA. National Planning Practice Guidance states that:
"Where a Level 1 Assessment shows that land outside flood risk areas cannot appropriately accommodate all the necessary development, it may be necessary to increase the scope of the Assessment to a Level 2 to provide the information necessary for application of the Exception Test where appropriate." (Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 7-012-20140306).
43. One of the recommendations of the Level 1 SFRA was:
"Should the Council wish to allocate sites with an identified flood risk, then the policy should either be to avoid the areas of flood risk or to assess the risk in more detail through either Level 2 SFRA work or on a site specific level. This more detailed review should include identification of Flood Zone 3b and it should assess flood hazard and depth for return periods up to and including the 1 in 1000 annual probability plus climate change event." (paragraph 9.2.1)
44. The nature of the areas that are within flood zone 3 (see Map 2) suggests that it could be difficult to ensure that the DHGV site delivers the necessary levels of development. Indeed, the SA notes Appendix K of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP):
"Whilst the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation document (January 2015) suggested that the area in question [around the area of high flood risk] would be left as open space, there is currently less certainty regarding precisely where built development... would occur. Also, it is noted that a large portion of the area under consideration... is identified by the SWMP as having limited potential to deliver 'infiltration' measures as part of sustainable drainage strategy."
Map 2: Flood zones in DHGV site
[Please find Map 2 in attached document]
45. Moreover, whilst the requirement of Policy RO1.D.k on DHGV for "strategically designed and appropriately phased infrastructure, employing the most up to date technologies to ensure a smart, sustainable and a resilient basis for drainage and flood management" is welcomed, it is of concern that such measures have not been scoped out in more depth to ascertain whether they do not undermine the viability of the overall development.
46. It is considered that without a Level 2 SFRA of the DHGV site, the Reg 19 Plan is not sound because it has not been justified and is not consistent with national policy.
47. The SA, in assessing the approach to flooding, summarises at paragraph 9.8.8:
"The Draft Plan (2016) appraisal concluded no significant effects on the basis that the spatial strategy generally avoided areas of flood risk, although flood risk is a constraint to growth at DHGV. Work has been ongoing to understand surface-water flood risk, and necessary Sustainable Drainage Systems (e.g. this was a reason for a decision being taken, following the Preferred Allocations consultation, to reduce the number of homes delivered at the Blackmore allocations), and so significant negative effects are not predicted in relation to the Proposed Submission Plan; however, there remains some uncertainty ahead of a detailed DHGV masterplan."
48. The SA then goes on to consider that, in respect of flooding, all sites are assessed as having an equal impact.
49. This approach is contrary to the advice in national Planning Practice Guidance, shown in Figure 2. The SA has failed to properly consider alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding and the evidence supporting the Reg 19 Plan has failed to properly demonstrate that the level of growth proposed for DHGV can be accommodated on the site in areas with a low probability of flooding.
Figure 2: Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a Local Plan
[Please see Figure 2 in the attached document]
50. It is considered that the Reg 19 Plan is not sound because national planning guidance in respect of the approach to taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a local plan.
5.0 Summary of objections - consistent with national policy and justified
51. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of the Dunton Hills Garden Village because it does not adequately demonstrate that it is consistent with national policy. As stated in the NPPF, such consistency is required to enable the delivery of sustainable development in line with the policies in the Framework. In order to do this, full and careful consideration must be given to, amongst other things, promoting sustainable transport and meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding - both objectives of the NPPF.
52. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of DHGV and its transport policies because it is not justified. It is not based on proportionate evidence to inform what the Plan acknowledges is a key principle that is used to justify the overarching strategy, namely the ability to deliver infrastructure that enables more sustainable movement. The reason that it is not based on proportionate evidence is because the evidence base fails to properly assess the impacts of growth on the A127 and to articulate - and cost - the provision of a sustainable movement strategy which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased demand. In this regard, the lack of evidence as to how the increased passenger numbers on the South Essex railway line through West Horndon station are of particular concern to the Parish Council.
53. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of DHGV and its policies in relation to flooding for two reasons. First, it has not undertaken a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, despite there being clear concerns raised in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) about the ability to accommodate the levels of growth proposed on the site whilst adequately mitigating the flood impacts. Second, the SA has failed, in light of this, to consider reasonable alternatives. Both of these matters mean that the preparation of the Reg 19 Plan is not consistent with national policy.

1.0 Introduction
1. These representations have been prepared by Navigus Planning on behalf of West Horndon Parish Council ('the Parish Council') in respect of the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation ('the Reg 19 Plan').
2. The principal matter that these representations address is the allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (Policy RO1) and specifically the soundness of that allocation, as required by paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In particular, the Parish Council is of the opinion that the Reg 19 Plan has not been justified because it hasn't been based on appropriate and proportionate evidence and is not consistent with national policy.
3. It is important to make clear that the Parish Council supports the allocation of the land at West Horndon Industrial Estate (Policy RO2) for residential, care home and appropriate employment uses.
2.0 Previous representations
4. The Parish Council's representations dated 22nd March 2016 to the Draft Local Plan raised a number of issues. It is the opinion of the Parish Council that the points made have not been addressed; indeed very little has changed in the Reg 19 Plan in light of representations made by any parties. The Parish Council wishes therefore to make clear that the representations it made on the Draft Local Plan are still outstanding and still represent matters that require addressing for the Reg 19 Plan to be considered to be sound.
3.0 Transport strategy
5. The spatial strategy in the Reg 19 Plan focuses on three main driving forces, one of which is 'Transit-oriented Growth'. Paragraph 3.11 notes that one of its 'connectivity axes' is the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station. It states that:
"Focusing growth along these axes will ensure that future development is sustainable, maximising the benefits of transport infrastructure. While some investment to improve the transport network will be inevitable, this growth strategy ensures economies of scale are reached, with the critical mass of development making it more viable for such investment to occur."
6. Whilst it is questionable as to whether growth along a road corridor can ever constitute sustainable development given the detrimental effects of increased car use on climate change and air pollution, the stated principle is supported. However, the Parish Council has concerns that the spatial strategy which is then presented fails to adequately justify or demonstrate what improvements are going to be needed to the transport network and whether the costs - which have not been properly scoped out - can be addressed by investment which can reasonably be expected to come from development and other sources. In this regard, it is important to be clear that Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor to support increased movement by all modes. Yet the Reg 19 Plan fails to properly consider this.
3.1 Road infrastructure
7. In answering the question 'What key issues should be considered in developing the transport evidence base to support the Local Plan?', national Planning Practice Guidance states that one such key issue is the need to, "consider the cumulative impacts of existing and proposed development on transport networks" (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 54-003-20141010).
8. The Transport Assessment which accompanies the Reg 19 Plan is the key piece of transport evidence used to demonstrate that the spatial strategy and growth proposed in the Plan can be supported by the strategic and local highway network. It includes a Reference Case Model which, as is stated in the Executive Summary, "...includes trips developments within neighbouring authorities, as well as additional background trips associated with population growth predictions for future years." Therefore, as far as the A127 Corridor is concerned, the Reference Case only considers the wider impact of growth in Basildon and Thurrock districts but excludes growth in Castle Point, Rochford or Southend-on-Sea. In considering what baseline information should inform a transport assessment, national Planning Practice Guidance states:
"The transport assessment should be produced at a Local Plan level in partnership with all relevant transport and planning authorities, transport providers and key stakeholders, for example, the Local Economic Partnership. It may be appropriate for the transport assessment to cover an area wider than the Local Plan at least initially given the size of some travel to work areas (this would be similar to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment). This process should help to identify any potential measures that may be required to mitigate negative impacts." (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 54-005-20141010)
9. In this regard, the Brentwood Transport Assessment fails to fully take into account the impacts of traffic coming from the eastern parts of the Corridor. The impact of this omission is demonstrated by other work which has assessed the wider impacts. Indeed, the Transport Assessment states that it takes account of the A127 Economic Plan , published in 2014. It states that paragraph 1.2.5 that:
"Where information is available, this has been used to inform the modelling. The final outcomes from the study are not yet known and continued joint working with ECC [Essex County Council] and other neighbouring authorities will be important, so any outcomes from this study can feed through to the corridor study and consideration given to demonstrate this within a Statement of Common Ground with the highway authorities and neighbouring authorities."
Map 1: Summary of transport impacts of 2014 Economic Plan modelling along A127 Corridor
[Please find the map in attached document]
10. Whilst the Brentwood Transport Assessment focuses on specific junctions and the requirements of growth in the Local Plan and neighbouring districts, the 2014 Economic Plan assesses flows along sections of the A127 from Southend to the M25. In this regard it is more explicitly considering the number of vehicles on the A127 during peak periods and how this affects the flow of traffic. Figure 1 in the Economic Plan (shown in Map 1 above) notes that, almost along its entirety, the A127 is close to or above capacity. Figure 2 (also shown in Map 1) notes that, with the planned growth which informed the modelling, it would be above capacity for almost its entire length. Moreover, the entire stretch from Rayleigh through to the M25 would be between 28% and 50% above capacity. It is clear that, as assessed in the 2014 Economic Plan, significant mitigation would be required along the A127 to address the levels of growth fed into the modelling.
11. Since this time, the levels of growth being planned for, or required to be planned for, in the A127 Corridor authorities, has increased substantially from those used to inform the 2014 Economic Plan. Table 1 shows that, based on emerging local plans or objectively assessed need figures, the growth levels being planned for have increased by 88% compared with the 2014 position:
Table 1: Comparison of growth used to inform 2014 transport modelling and current levels of growth being planned for
[Please find table 1 in attached document]
12. If the 2014 Forecast Congestion Reference showed that the A127 would be significantly above capacity, then the near doubling of growth is likely to result in a significant worsening of this position. The outputs of the Brentwood Transport Assessment, whilst acknowledging the importance of the A127 Economic Plan work which it notes is still ongoing, fail to take into account this evidence.
13. It should be noted that this analysis does not take into account the impacts of either the Lower Thames Crossing or proposed employment growth over the plan period.
14. It is the view of the Parish Council that the Transport Assessment is not sufficiently robust to take into account the cumulative impacts of planned growth on the A127, as required by National Planning Practice Guidance.
15. When looking in isolation at the results of the Transport Assessment in respect of the potential solution to mitigate congestion at the A127/A128 Brentwood Road/A128 Tilbury Road junction serving Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and East Horndon Hall allocation, it is noted that paragraph 9.4.8 summarises the results as follows:
"During the PM peak, however, the arm shows a degree of saturation of 95%, although this is over capacity, the operation of this junction has improved significantly."
16. Whilst it is not disputed that the identified mitigation will improve the position, the fact is that the junction will still be over-capacity. When it is borne in mind that the wider impacts of growth along the A127 Corridor have not been taken into account, then the degree to which it will be over-capacity is certain to increase. A strategy predicated on growth which, despite a focus on sustainable transport, results in road junctions being over capacity, is not sustainable.
17. The Transport Assessment identifies a total of 8 junctions that require significant mitigation across the borough. The Brentwood Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) schedule gives a 'headline estimate' of £4m to address local highway network improvements. The Parish Council considers it extremely unlikely that it will cost an average of just £0.5m per junction to put in place the necessary mitigation measures at these junctions. Moreover, as is noted in paragraph 10.5.3 of the Transport Assessment, "Requirements for each of the proposals was identified and any physical constraints identified, no investigation to land ownership or costs involving the moving of Statutory Undertakers and Utility Apparatus was undertaken."
18. As Map 1 showed, the forecast delays on the A127 are significant and our analysis shows that these have been informed by growth figures well below those that are being planned for. It is not only mitigation at junctions which is required but solutions to expand capacity on the A127 itself. The degree to which individual junction improvements will mitigate the impact of the overall volume of traffic on the A127 at peak period is likely to be limited. At page 11 of the A127 Corridor for Growth Study states that, "The number of side-roads and accesses along the A127 tend to restrict any benefit from traditional capacity improvement measures, such as additional lanes." Therefore it is not considered likely that such solutions will be possible.
19. The need to address the significant strategic impacts of growth along the A127 has been recognised through the establishment of an A127 Economic Growth Corridor Task Force in November 2018. As is noted in its launch presentation, options for consideration include re-trunking of the road and the Group has had "positive discussions with Highways England and the Department for Transport" on this. If successful, this would open up opportunities for funding through the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS). This highlights a key point, namely that the current A127 does not qualify for RIS funding. Once the true cost of mitigation of the junctions along the A127 to address Local Plan growth has fully taken into account the cost of land acquisition and utilities, the bill is likely to be much higher than the 'headline' £4m and will require funding from other sources. In this regard, the decision over whether the A127 is re-trunked becomes critical to the delivery of the growth strategy, not only for the Brentwood Reg 19 Plan but for the emerging local plans of the other authorities along the route. At this stage, no progress has been made in this regard therefore this cannot be part of the evidence base which justifies the deliverability of the proposals in the Reg 19 Plan along the A127 Corridor.
20. Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that:
"In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans...it should be ensured that... any significant impacts from the development on...highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree."
21. The Transport Assessment only makes a single mention of highway safety, at paragraph 1.2.5, referring to the A127 Corridor for Growth Study by stating that:
"... there are individual pieces of work which are currently at various stages of planning and development, which are focussed on interchange capacity and/or safety improvements. Where information is available, this has been used to inform the modelling."
22. Page 11 of the A127 Study states that:
"The collisions caused by being an over-capacity road are not simple to address...The junctions identified as being problematic are the A128 Halfway House, B148 Dunton, A132 Nevendon and the A176 Upper Mayne junctions".
23. These are the junctions that are critical to the delivery of the DHGV and East Horndon Hall allocation (which, as an employment allocation, will create significant levels of HGV traffic accessing the junction) yet the evidence base to consider not only capacity but highway safety has not been adequately completed or aligned.
3.2 Sustainable transport movement
24. The transit-oriented growth strategy that underpins the Reg 19 Plan relies heavily on rail, and to a lesser extent, bus cycling and walking infrastructure, to reduce levels of car use by effecting modal shift for as many journeys as possible. In many respects, the success of the strategy is predicated on this modal shift yet nowhere in the evidence base does it suggest what the required increases in rail and bus patronage, cycling and walking are.
25. In assessing sustainable modes of travel, the Transport Assessment makes reference to Department for Transport (DfT) evidence on travel plans variously from 2005, 2007 and 2010, much of which based its outputs on data gathered between 2004 and 2008. These are extremely dated evidence sources framed within a totally different historical policy context, so to rely on them to support a plan being consulted on in 2019 lacks credibility. Even if one does take the lessons learned from this historical evidence, it is clear that the ability to affect significant modal shift in Brentwood borough is expected by the Transport Assessment to be very limited. Paragraph 7.3.9 of the Transport Assessment states that, "This seems a proportionate and pragmatic approach and the reduction in trips is at a level which should be achievable in the future in the context of the modelling". It then presents in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 the assumed numbers of car driver trips once 'sustainable measures' have been applied. In summary:
* In the morning peak, there would be a reduction of 239 car driver trips out of a total of 22,499 trips (1.06%)
* In the evening peak there would be a reduction of 194 car driver trips out of a total of 22,484 trips (0.86%)
26. This is not considered to represent a sustainable movement strategy therefore the Reg 19 Plan cannot be considered to be justified because it does not represent a reasonable strategy.
27. We now consider each of the sustainable transport modes in turn, as far as they relate to growth at DHGV and West Horndon.
3.3 Rail infrastructure
28. The transit-oriented growth strategy that underpins the Reg 19 Plan relies heavily on the rail network to enable the increased resident and worker population to travel by train. It recognises that a significant proportion of people commute out to London on the rail network every day (Figure 3.7 in the IDP notes that the proportion of residents in Brentwood commuting by rail is high).
29. A key part of the strategy focuses on West Horndon station, with the strategy expecting the new residents in West Horndon and DHGV to use this station when travelling by train. Figure 3.8 in the IDP summarises the number of users of the station over the period 2010 to 2015. It then states at paragraph 3.38 that, "West Horndon Station's growth levels are very modest." This may be true as far as entries and exits to and from the station when compared with other stations on the Anglian mainline (Shenfield, Ingatestone, Brentwood and Chelmsford) but this makes no acknowledgement of how busy the train are. As is shown by the photo in Figure 1, the C2C trains serving West Horndon during the morning peak at present are heavily congested:
Figure 1: Photo of typical train congestion on London-bound trains from West Horndon station in the morning peak, March 2019
[Please find the photo in attached document]
30. Local commuters report that trains arriving between 06.54 and 09.02 always have standing room only. In total this includes 9 trains which travel to London Fenchurch Street Station each morning. It is clear that a growth strategy predicated on increased train usage requires an increase in the capacity of the trains on the London, Tilbury and Southend line to London Fenchurch Street Station. This is endorsed by the Transport Assessment which, when considering the West Horndon public transport interchange at the station, states at paragraph 7.2.26 that:
"An increased capacity on the existing train service will be central to the new cycling, walking and bus movements of the new residents and employees accessing the four sites."
31. Despite this, there are no identified plans for investment in increased passenger rail capacity on this line and no suggestion in the Reg 19 Plan or the evidence base as to the scale of improvements required. Whilst the expansion of the interchange at West Horndon station is welcomed, this of itself will not increase capacity on the rail network. The national Planning Practice Guidance addresses what baseline information should inform a transport assessment of a Local Plan. It notes that this should include an assessment of, "accessibility of transport nodes such as rail/bus stations to facilitate integrated solutions" (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 54-005-20141010). This includes their accessibility by rail, which is particularly important given the reliance on linked trips by rail passengers seeking to access DHGV (by bus, cycling or on foot). Yet the evidence supporting the Reg 19 Plan does not provide this.
3.4 Cycling and walking infrastructure
32. The national Planning Practice Guidance requires a transport assessment to consider whether it should establish 'future predicted trips' in respect of walking and cycling facilities and movements. Given the Reg 19 Plan strategy is for a key non-vehicular movement corridor to be between DHGV and West Horndon, this must be part of the Transport Assessment as it is important to understand the modal share that such trips are expected to account for. Yet none of the evidence provides any suggestion as to what proportion of journeys between these two locations is expected to be by non-vehicular modes. This is crucial to the success of the strategy because West Horndon is a key transport interchange and DHGV is the planned location for all new education provision to serve the growth in pupils from West Horndon.
33. Equally, Figure 3.5 in the IDP notes the scale of the challenge - between 2001 and 2011 cycling to work by Brentwood residents fell and was the second lowest in Essex. It is unclear what the strategy is to increase modal share by bicycle. Not only does the Reg 19 Plan not identify specific routes but it does not make clear how cyclists would navigate across key junctions safely. This is critical because it is well established that one of the main reasons why levels of cycling in England remain low is because of safety concerns. An off-road route will encourage people but if that route doesn't provide safe passage across heavily-trafficked junctions, then people will not cycle.
34. The Reg 19 Plan provides no suggestion that such a route has been properly considered or that it has been secured. The costs identified in the IDP schedule therefore cannot be verified because the evidence does not demonstrate how they have been derived. However, with dedicated cycle routes in the order of 3km required to link West Horndon station into and through DHGV, an allowance of £1.8m for walkways and cycleways appears to be a gross under-estimate if a meaningful and required increase in cycling and walking is to be achieved.
35. The lack of certainty is reinforced by the IDP schedule referring into to 'feasibility studies' in respect of a green bridge (over the A127) and pedestrian underpass (under the A128). Whilst a 'headline estimate' cost is provided, it is not clear how the strategy would be delivered if the feasibility studies determined that one or both of these schemes could not be delivered.
36. As noted above, it is vital to the sustainability of the Reg 19 Plan strategy that as many short journeys as possible between West Horndon and DHGV are undertaken by non-vehicular modes. Given that all the proposed primary school provision to serve the growth at West Horndon will be provided at DHGV, then maximising the potential for children to walk and cycle to school is vital. In this regard, the need for safe and direct routes increases in importance. Very few primary school-aged children are going to walk or cycle on routes which are not separated from vehicular traffic and equally, very few children are going to walk more than one kilometre to school, irrespective of the quality of the route. It is a significant concern to the Parish Council that without a clear and credible plan for developing walking and cycling linkages between West Horndon and DHGV, then the reality is that many parents will choose to take primary school-aged children to school by car. This will exacerbate the congestion at school drop-off and pick-up time in West Horndon, with some parents travelling by car to West Horndon Primary School and others leaving West Horndon to access schools in DHGV.
4.0 Flooding
37. The Parish Council, in its representations on the Draft Local Plan in March 2016, addressed concerns relating to flood risk and the impact of flooding on West Horndon. We do not seek to reiterate those points here.
38. The Brentwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2018 identifies that large sections of the area around West Horndon, including the land to the east which connects it to the DHGV site, are considered to be high risk flood areas. This is demonstrated on the ground in West Horndon, with areas regularly lying under water and, at Christmas in both 2012 and 2013, subject to major flood events (see photos below).
[please find the photos in attached document]
39. In light of this and the fact that these events are occurring with increasing regularity (and scientific evidence making clear that a major cause of this is climate change), it is considered vital that a precautionary approach is taken to considering the impact of flooding, not least because of the scale of growth proposed at DHGV as well as the significant amount of employment development proposed at East Horndon Hall (Policy E13).
40. The likely implications of climate change on flooding are only starting to be realised. In fact, on 28th February 2019, the Environment Agency published a new report which looked at the likely impacts over the long term . This is based on more recent mapping data (2018) than is included in the flood risk mapping used to inform the evidence base for the Reg 19 Plan. It identifies that there are more places where new investment is not going to be cost effective and therefore, as a purely economic issue, more money will be needed to provide better flood mitigation infrastructure in more places. So whilst evidence from the local community may be anecdotal, it is based on observation over a long period of time and aligns with the evidence in the Environment Agency report that the threats are more widespread than the current evidence suggests.
41. One such example where this is considered to be the case is the proposed East Horndon Hall allocation. This field is observed to frequently be flooded and therefore there are significant concerns that the flood mitigation required for this site alone will be significant. The cumulative impacts of this site and the neighbouring DHGV site are therefore considered likely to be significant and the evidence used to inform the Reg 19 Plan has not fully and properly considered this.
42. The Reg 19 Plan is not accompanied by a Level 2 SFRA. National Planning Practice Guidance states that:
"Where a Level 1 Assessment shows that land outside flood risk areas cannot appropriately accommodate all the necessary development, it may be necessary to increase the scope of the Assessment to a Level 2 to provide the information necessary for application of the Exception Test where appropriate." (Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 7-012-20140306).
43. One of the recommendations of the Level 1 SFRA was:
"Should the Council wish to allocate sites with an identified flood risk, then the policy should either be to avoid the areas of flood risk or to assess the risk in more detail through either Level 2 SFRA work or on a site specific level. This more detailed review should include identification of Flood Zone 3b and it should assess flood hazard and depth for return periods up to and including the 1 in 1000 annual probability plus climate change event." (paragraph 9.2.1)
44. The nature of the areas that are within flood zone 3 (see Map 2) suggests that it could be difficult to ensure that the DHGV site delivers the necessary levels of development. Indeed, the SA notes Appendix K of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP):
"Whilst the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation document (January 2015) suggested that the area in question [around the area of high flood risk] would be left as open space, there is currently less certainty regarding precisely where built development... would occur. Also, it is noted that a large portion of the area under consideration... is identified by the SWMP as having limited potential to deliver 'infiltration' measures as part of sustainable drainage strategy."
Map 2: Flood zones in DHGV site
[Please find Map 2 in attached document]
45. Moreover, whilst the requirement of Policy RO1.D.k on DHGV for "strategically designed and appropriately phased infrastructure, employing the most up to date technologies to ensure a smart, sustainable and a resilient basis for drainage and flood management" is welcomed, it is of concern that such measures have not been scoped out in more depth to ascertain whether they do not undermine the viability of the overall development.
46. It is considered that without a Level 2 SFRA of the DHGV site, the Reg 19 Plan is not sound because it has not been justified and is not consistent with national policy.
47. The SA, in assessing the approach to flooding, summarises at paragraph 9.8.8:
"The Draft Plan (2016) appraisal concluded no significant effects on the basis that the spatial strategy generally avoided areas of flood risk, although flood risk is a constraint to growth at DHGV. Work has been ongoing to understand surface-water flood risk, and necessary Sustainable Drainage Systems (e.g. this was a reason for a decision being taken, following the Preferred Allocations consultation, to reduce the number of homes delivered at the Blackmore allocations), and so significant negative effects are not predicted in relation to the Proposed Submission Plan; however, there remains some uncertainty ahead of a detailed DHGV masterplan."
48. The SA then goes on to consider that, in respect of flooding, all sites are assessed as having an equal impact.
49. This approach is contrary to the advice in national Planning Practice Guidance, shown in Figure 2. The SA has failed to properly consider alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding and the evidence supporting the Reg 19 Plan has failed to properly demonstrate that the level of growth proposed for DHGV can be accommodated on the site in areas with a low probability of flooding.
Figure 2: Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a Local Plan
[Please see Figure 2 in the attached document]
50. It is considered that the Reg 19 Plan is not sound because national planning guidance in respect of the approach to taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a local plan.
5.0 Summary of objections - consistent with national policy and justified
51. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of the Dunton Hills Garden Village because it does not adequately demonstrate that it is consistent with national policy. As stated in the NPPF, such consistency is required to enable the delivery of sustainable development in line with the policies in the Framework. In order to do this, full and careful consideration must be given to, amongst other things, promoting sustainable transport and meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding - both objectives of the NPPF.
52. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of DHGV and its transport policies because it is not justified. It is not based on proportionate evidence to inform what the Plan acknowledges is a key principle that is used to justify the overarching strategy, namely the ability to deliver infrastructure that enables more sustainable movement. The reason that it is not based on proportionate evidence is because the evidence base fails to properly assess the impacts of growth on the A127 and to articulate - and cost - the provision of a sustainable movement strategy which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased demand. In this regard, the lack of evidence as to how the increased passenger numbers on the South Essex railway line through West Horndon station are of particular concern to the Parish Council.
53. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of DHGV and its policies in relation to flooding for two reasons. First, it has not undertaken a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, despite there being clear concerns raised in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) about the ability to accommodate the levels of growth proposed on the site whilst adequately mitigating the flood impacts. Second, the SA has failed, in light of this, to consider reasonable alternatives. Both of these matters mean that the preparation of the Reg 19 Plan is not consistent with national policy.

The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association represents the interests of users of public transport in the Brentwood district.
Its aims and objectives are fourfold:
* To make representations on behalf of Brentwood's bus and rail users on the local services that are currently available and to campaign for new services to be .
* To campaign for more investment in local bus and rail services.
* To have regular dialogue with the local transport providers and Essex County Council.
* To work with other organisations and individuals to improve and develop local bus and rail services in our area.
In pursuit of these aims and objectives it wishes to comment on the implications of the Local Development Plan as amended by the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 8th November 2018.
The Plan will clearly have far-reaching implications for Brentwood's public transport network. First, it changes significantly the size and distribution of the borough's population and the consequent additional requirements for ways to access work, health and education, shopping and leisure. Secondly it will add to the already problematic traffic congestion issues at known pinch-points in the borough, which are already making it very difficult for bus operators to maintain a regular and efficient service.
It is therefore a matter of extreme concern for the Association that there are only four references to public transport in the document citing preferred allocations.
Most are in the aspirational vein of the Strategic Objectives
* Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well
connected to bus and/or rail connections.
* Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including
electric vehicles charging points and other measures.
* Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or
network of green transport corridors.
This contrasts with health and school capacity, which are dealt with in some detail.
There are no references to traffic congestion, to which the Plan will clearly contribute. There are three references to bus services, one in the strategic objective and two in relation to one preferred site for an employment site which "has the potential" for development of bus services i.e. there are none at the moment.
It is difficult to see how a plan can be called strategic without proper consideration of public transport (i.e. buses as rail transport relates to travel in and out of the borough) within the borough. There is no mention of how congestion, which already inhibits travel within the borough and is predicted to increase even without the additional housing and business development.
There is limited scope for road improvements in the borough and additional developments are
outside the control of the planning authority. Increased congestion will impact on the ability of bus
operators to provide a regular and efficient service, reducing the extend to which they will be taken
up by users and increasing the likelihood that they will prove uneconomic and be withdrawn.
The impact of the proposed allocations
Central Area
The Ford Offices are excluded from this section and allocated to the Outer Area in the table below as
the site, although served by buses, is too far for most people to consider the station walkable while
Brentwood High St most certainly is not.
It is assumed that most people would find it possible to walk to Brentwood station and to the High
Street. A regular bus service is available from Warley (Council Depot) and from close to the Shenfield
sites (Priests Lane is walkable to Brentwood High Street but probably closer to Shenfield Station).
Outer Area
The sites in the outer area (beyond reasonable walking distance) present some difficulty. Some (Sow
& Grow and the three Warley sites (Ford Offices, Mascalls Lane and Pastoral Way) are close to bus
routes to Brentwood Station and High Street. For convenience, residents may choose to drive rather
than wait for the regular bus services (to which they have to walk). Brook Street has a regular bus
service to the High Street but not to the station and people are likely to drive there rather than
change buses in the High Street.
Ingatestone
The Ingatestone developments are just about walkable from the station and the limited number of
shops in Ingatestone High Street. The train service from Ingatestone is less frequent than from
Shenfield and people are therefore likely to drive there rather than use their local station. There is a
half-hourly bus service into Brentwood but many people are likely to opt to drive.
Northern Villages
Existing bus services are not sufficiently attractive to residents to persuade them to use them rather
than to drive. The addition of 169 additional units is unlikely to change the economics until bus
companies can justify later evening services for returning commuters and socialising residents. It is
likely than buses will remain very much the less favoured option. The consequence is higher volumes
of traffic on feeder roads into Brentwood such as the already-congested A128 and Doddinghurst
Road.
Dunton Garden Village
It is likely that residents of the proposed Dunton Garden Village will look towards Basildon and
Lakeside for their shopping and leisure activities, meaning that the injection of consumer spend in
the core settlement of Brentwood is likely to be minimal. The demand for public transport will
reflect this, with the benefit of increased capacity and potential new routes spread laterally along
the A127/A13 corridor than northwards into the rest of the borough.
Congestion
Any additional or enhanced bus services into Brentwood will have to cope with increased congestion
in the mornings on the A128 through Herongate and Ingrave - in fact it is difficult to see how much
more traffic can be accommodated on this section of road even without additional developments.
Brentwood's centre is already heavily congested at peak times, especially since the County Council's
revised school transport policy has left many parents from the Northern Villages in particular reliant
on private transport. The congestion is acute on the A128 from Pilgrims Hatch into Brentwood and
from Herongate/Ingrave, with consequent congestion on Shenfield and London Roads. There are
other bottlenecks in Kings Road and around the cluster of schools in Sawyers Hall Lane.
All of this will only get worse as the number of vehicles follows the predicted increase and the
addition of more than 2,000 homes around Brentwood but outside walking distance (and excluding
Ingatestone and Dunton) will only make things worse.
There will be consequences for parking (already barely adequate at peak times), pollution with the
levels of gases and particulates increasing to the detriment of people's health, and for the viability of
commercial bus services as their reliability and regularity is challenged.
All this makes the Plan's strategic objective ("to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure
development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections") a massive challenge.
Commercial partners will not join until the revenue benefits are clear and the costs defined. It is
unlikely this will precede the developments. In some cases (Northern Villages) the proposed
developments are too small to make more than a marginal difference to the economics of public
transport but they will suffer most if the road system is catastrophically congested.
The Other Strategic Objective
The Plan offers the following objective: "to improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough
and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors".
Cycling and walking are technically possible in the central and outer areas now. In practice
Brentwood is a hostile environment for both cyclists and pedestrians. For the former, pavements are
in a degraded state across the borough and the County Council's belated allocation of £700,000
across the County in reality allows little scope for massive improvement. Opportunities to negotiate
crossings in the High Street and immediate area are few and far between, with the priority always
seeming to be swung towards motorised traffic and the mantra of keeping traffic flows constant.
For cyclists, Brentwood is a potential death trap, with the residual potholes that fail to meet ECC
criteria for repair a constant and potentially lethal hazard. The general absence of cycle lanes
militates against safe use of the main roads; junctions are structured for vehicles and not bicycles.
For the outer areas, the high speed of traffic on the main routes, the narrowness of lanes and the
absence of cycle lanes militates against their use.
Conclusion
The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users recognises the imperative on Brentwood Borough Council to
provide additional housing in the area. It is, however, deeply concerned that the number and
distribution of proposed new dwellings will, if car ownership remains unchanged, place an
impossible burden on the existing road system and in particular on the existing network of bus
services. Delays to buses caused by congestion will not encourage greater use - and we fear the
reverse, with proportionately more people using private transport.
With no reference in the Plan to innovative solutions such as park-and-ride, and only lip service paid
to the encouragement of cycling and walking as an alternative, the Association fails to see how the
requirement that delivery of the Plan is environmentally sustainable can be met.
David Jobbins
Vice Chair, Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association represents the interests of users of public transport in the Brentwood district.
Its aims and objectives are fourfold:
* To make representations on behalf of Brentwood's bus and rail users on the local services that are currently available and to campaign for new services to be .
* To campaign for more investment in local bus and rail services.
* To have regular dialogue with the local transport providers and Essex County Council.
* To work with other organisations and individuals to improve and develop local bus and rail services in our area.
In pursuit of these aims and objectives it wishes to comment on the implications of the Local Development Plan as amended by the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 8th November 2018.
The Plan will clearly have far-reaching implications for Brentwood's public transport network. First, it changes significantly the size and distribution of the borough's population and the consequent additional requirements for ways to access work, health and education, shopping and leisure. Secondly it will add to the already problematic traffic congestion issues at known pinch-points in the borough, which are already making it very difficult for bus operators to maintain a regular and efficient service.
It is therefore a matter of extreme concern for the Association that there are only four references to public transport in the document citing preferred allocations.
Most are in the aspirational vein of the Strategic Objectives
* Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well
connected to bus and/or rail connections.
* Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including
electric vehicles charging points and other measures.
* Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or
network of green transport corridors.
This contrasts with health and school capacity, which are dealt with in some detail.
There are no references to traffic congestion, to which the Plan will clearly contribute. There are three references to bus services, one in the strategic objective and two in relation to one preferred site for an employment site which "has the potential" for development of bus services i.e. there are none at the moment.
It is difficult to see how a plan can be called strategic without proper consideration of public transport (i.e. buses as rail transport relates to travel in and out of the borough) within the borough. There is no mention of how congestion, which already inhibits travel within the borough and is predicted to increase even without the additional housing and business development.
There is limited scope for road improvements in the borough and additional developments are
outside the control of the planning authority. Increased congestion will impact on the ability of bus
operators to provide a regular and efficient service, reducing the extend to which they will be taken
up by users and increasing the likelihood that they will prove uneconomic and be withdrawn.
The impact of the proposed allocations
Central Area
The Ford Offices are excluded from this section and allocated to the Outer Area in the table below as
the site, although served by buses, is too far for most people to consider the station walkable while
Brentwood High St most certainly is not.
It is assumed that most people would find it possible to walk to Brentwood station and to the High
Street. A regular bus service is available from Warley (Council Depot) and from close to the Shenfield
sites (Priests Lane is walkable to Brentwood High Street but probably closer to Shenfield Station).
Outer Area
The sites in the outer area (beyond reasonable walking distance) present some difficulty. Some (Sow
& Grow and the three Warley sites (Ford Offices, Mascalls Lane and Pastoral Way) are close to bus
routes to Brentwood Station and High Street. For convenience, residents may choose to drive rather
than wait for the regular bus services (to which they have to walk). Brook Street has a regular bus
service to the High Street but not to the station and people are likely to drive there rather than
change buses in the High Street.
Ingatestone
The Ingatestone developments are just about walkable from the station and the limited number of
shops in Ingatestone High Street. The train service from Ingatestone is less frequent than from
Shenfield and people are therefore likely to drive there rather than use their local station. There is a
half-hourly bus service into Brentwood but many people are likely to opt to drive.
Northern Villages
Existing bus services are not sufficiently attractive to residents to persuade them to use them rather
than to drive. The addition of 169 additional units is unlikely to change the economics until bus
companies can justify later evening services for returning commuters and socialising residents. It is
likely than buses will remain very much the less favoured option. The consequence is higher volumes
of traffic on feeder roads into Brentwood such as the already-congested A128 and Doddinghurst
Road.
Dunton Garden Village
It is likely that residents of the proposed Dunton Garden Village will look towards Basildon and
Lakeside for their shopping and leisure activities, meaning that the injection of consumer spend in
the core settlement of Brentwood is likely to be minimal. The demand for public transport will
reflect this, with the benefit of increased capacity and potential new routes spread laterally along
the A127/A13 corridor than northwards into the rest of the borough.
Congestion
Any additional or enhanced bus services into Brentwood will have to cope with increased congestion
in the mornings on the A128 through Herongate and Ingrave - in fact it is difficult to see how much
more traffic can be accommodated on this section of road even without additional developments.
Brentwood's centre is already heavily congested at peak times, especially since the County Council's
revised school transport policy has left many parents from the Northern Villages in particular reliant
on private transport. The congestion is acute on the A128 from Pilgrims Hatch into Brentwood and
from Herongate/Ingrave, with consequent congestion on Shenfield and London Roads. There are
other bottlenecks in Kings Road and around the cluster of schools in Sawyers Hall Lane.
All of this will only get worse as the number of vehicles follows the predicted increase and the
addition of more than 2,000 homes around Brentwood but outside walking distance (and excluding
Ingatestone and Dunton) will only make things worse.
There will be consequences for parking (already barely adequate at peak times), pollution with the
levels of gases and particulates increasing to the detriment of people's health, and for the viability of
commercial bus services as their reliability and regularity is challenged.
All this makes the Plan's strategic objective ("to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure
development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections") a massive challenge.
Commercial partners will not join until the revenue benefits are clear and the costs defined. It is
unlikely this will precede the developments. In some cases (Northern Villages) the proposed
developments are too small to make more than a marginal difference to the economics of public
transport but they will suffer most if the road system is catastrophically congested.
The Other Strategic Objective
The Plan offers the following objective: "to improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough
and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors".
Cycling and walking are technically possible in the central and outer areas now. In practice
Brentwood is a hostile environment for both cyclists and pedestrians. For the former, pavements are
in a degraded state across the borough and the County Council's belated allocation of £700,000
across the County in reality allows little scope for massive improvement. Opportunities to negotiate
crossings in the High Street and immediate area are few and far between, with the priority always
seeming to be swung towards motorised traffic and the mantra of keeping traffic flows constant.
For cyclists, Brentwood is a potential death trap, with the residual potholes that fail to meet ECC
criteria for repair a constant and potentially lethal hazard. The general absence of cycle lanes
militates against safe use of the main roads; junctions are structured for vehicles and not bicycles.
For the outer areas, the high speed of traffic on the main routes, the narrowness of lanes and the
absence of cycle lanes militates against their use.
Conclusion
The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users recognises the imperative on Brentwood Borough Council to
provide additional housing in the area. It is, however, deeply concerned that the number and
distribution of proposed new dwellings will, if car ownership remains unchanged, place an
impossible burden on the existing road system and in particular on the existing network of bus
services. Delays to buses caused by congestion will not encourage greater use - and we fear the
reverse, with proportionately more people using private transport.
With no reference in the Plan to innovative solutions such as park-and-ride, and only lip service paid
to the encouragement of cycling and walking as an alternative, the Association fails to see how the
requirement that delivery of the Plan is environmentally sustainable can be met.
David Jobbins
Vice Chair, Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

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

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

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

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

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

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



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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



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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

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

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

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

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

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

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

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

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

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

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DUNTON HALL

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

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

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

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

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


EAST HORNDON HALL

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

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


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


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

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



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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

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

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


Further representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association represents the interests of users of public transport in the Brentwood district.
Its aims and objectives are fourfold:
* To make representations on behalf of Brentwood's bus and rail users on the local services that are currently available and to campaign for new services to be .
* To campaign for more investment in local bus and rail services.
* To have regular dialogue with the local transport providers and Essex County Council.
* To work with other organisations and individuals to improve and develop local bus and rail services in our area.
In pursuit of these aims and objectives it wishes to comment on the implications of the Local Development Plan as amended by the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 8th November 2018.
The Plan will clearly have far-reaching implications for Brentwood's public transport network. First, it changes significantly the size and distribution of the borough's population and the consequent additional requirements for ways to access work, health and education, shopping and leisure. Secondly it will add to the already problematic traffic congestion issues at known pinch-points in the borough, which are already making it very difficult for bus operators to maintain a regular and efficient service.
It is therefore a matter of extreme concern for the Association that there are only four references to public transport in the document citing preferred allocations.
Most are in the aspirational vein of the Strategic Objectives
* Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well
connected to bus and/or rail connections.
* Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including
electric vehicles charging points and other measures.
* Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or
network of green transport corridors.
This contrasts with health and school capacity, which are dealt with in some detail.
There are no references to traffic congestion, to which the Plan will clearly contribute. There are three references to bus services, one in the strategic objective and two in relation to one preferred site for an employment site which "has the potential" for development of bus services i.e. there are none at the moment.
It is difficult to see how a plan can be called strategic without proper consideration of public transport (i.e. buses as rail transport relates to travel in and out of the borough) within the borough. There is no mention of how congestion, which already inhibits travel within the borough and is predicted to increase even without the additional housing and business development.
There is limited scope for road improvements in the borough and additional developments are
outside the control of the planning authority. Increased congestion will impact on the ability of bus
operators to provide a regular and efficient service, reducing the extend to which they will be taken
up by users and increasing the likelihood that they will prove uneconomic and be withdrawn.
The impact of the proposed allocations
Central Area
The Ford Offices are excluded from this section and allocated to the Outer Area in the table below as
the site, although served by buses, is too far for most people to consider the station walkable while
Brentwood High St most certainly is not.
It is assumed that most people would find it possible to walk to Brentwood station and to the High
Street. A regular bus service is available from Warley (Council Depot) and from close to the Shenfield
sites (Priests Lane is walkable to Brentwood High Street but probably closer to Shenfield Station).
Outer Area
The sites in the outer area (beyond reasonable walking distance) present some difficulty. Some (Sow
& Grow and the three Warley sites (Ford Offices, Mascalls Lane and Pastoral Way) are close to bus
routes to Brentwood Station and High Street. For convenience, residents may choose to drive rather
than wait for the regular bus services (to which they have to walk). Brook Street has a regular bus
service to the High Street but not to the station and people are likely to drive there rather than
change buses in the High Street.
Ingatestone
The Ingatestone developments are just about walkable from the station and the limited number of
shops in Ingatestone High Street. The train service from Ingatestone is less frequent than from
Shenfield and people are therefore likely to drive there rather than use their local station. There is a
half-hourly bus service into Brentwood but many people are likely to opt to drive.
Northern Villages
Existing bus services are not sufficiently attractive to residents to persuade them to use them rather
than to drive. The addition of 169 additional units is unlikely to change the economics until bus
companies can justify later evening services for returning commuters and socialising residents. It is
likely than buses will remain very much the less favoured option. The consequence is higher volumes
of traffic on feeder roads into Brentwood such as the already-congested A128 and Doddinghurst
Road.
Dunton Garden Village
It is likely that residents of the proposed Dunton Garden Village will look towards Basildon and
Lakeside for their shopping and leisure activities, meaning that the injection of consumer spend in
the core settlement of Brentwood is likely to be minimal. The demand for public transport will
reflect this, with the benefit of increased capacity and potential new routes spread laterally along
the A127/A13 corridor than northwards into the rest of the borough.
Congestion
Any additional or enhanced bus services into Brentwood will have to cope with increased congestion
in the mornings on the A128 through Herongate and Ingrave - in fact it is difficult to see how much
more traffic can be accommodated on this section of road even without additional developments.
Brentwood's centre is already heavily congested at peak times, especially since the County Council's
revised school transport policy has left many parents from the Northern Villages in particular reliant
on private transport. The congestion is acute on the A128 from Pilgrims Hatch into Brentwood and
from Herongate/Ingrave, with consequent congestion on Shenfield and London Roads. There are
other bottlenecks in Kings Road and around the cluster of schools in Sawyers Hall Lane.
All of this will only get worse as the number of vehicles follows the predicted increase and the
addition of more than 2,000 homes around Brentwood but outside walking distance (and excluding
Ingatestone and Dunton) will only make things worse.
There will be consequences for parking (already barely adequate at peak times), pollution with the
levels of gases and particulates increasing to the detriment of people's health, and for the viability of
commercial bus services as their reliability and regularity is challenged.
All this makes the Plan's strategic objective ("to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure
development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections") a massive challenge.
Commercial partners will not join until the revenue benefits are clear and the costs defined. It is
unlikely this will precede the developments. In some cases (Northern Villages) the proposed
developments are too small to make more than a marginal difference to the economics of public
transport but they will suffer most if the road system is catastrophically congested.
The Other Strategic Objective
The Plan offers the following objective: "to improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough
and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors".
Cycling and walking are technically possible in the central and outer areas now. In practice
Brentwood is a hostile environment for both cyclists and pedestrians. For the former, pavements are
in a degraded state across the borough and the County Council's belated allocation of £700,000
across the County in reality allows little scope for massive improvement. Opportunities to negotiate
crossings in the High Street and immediate area are few and far between, with the priority always
seeming to be swung towards motorised traffic and the mantra of keeping traffic flows constant.
For cyclists, Brentwood is a potential death trap, with the residual potholes that fail to meet ECC
criteria for repair a constant and potentially lethal hazard. The general absence of cycle lanes
militates against safe use of the main roads; junctions are structured for vehicles and not bicycles.
For the outer areas, the high speed of traffic on the main routes, the narrowness of lanes and the
absence of cycle lanes militates against their use.
Conclusion
The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users recognises the imperative on Brentwood Borough Council to
provide additional housing in the area. It is, however, deeply concerned that the number and
distribution of proposed new dwellings will, if car ownership remains unchanged, place an
impossible burden on the existing road system and in particular on the existing network of bus
services. Delays to buses caused by congestion will not encourage greater use - and we fear the
reverse, with proportionately more people using private transport.
With no reference in the Plan to innovative solutions such as park-and-ride, and only lip service paid
to the encouragement of cycling and walking as an alternative, the Association fails to see how the
requirement that delivery of the Plan is environmentally sustainable can be met.
David Jobbins
Vice Chair, Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association represents the interests of users of public transport in the Brentwood district.
Its aims and objectives are fourfold:
* To make representations on behalf of Brentwood's bus and rail users on the local services that are currently available and to campaign for new services to be .
* To campaign for more investment in local bus and rail services.
* To have regular dialogue with the local transport providers and Essex County Council.
* To work with other organisations and individuals to improve and develop local bus and rail services in our area.
In pursuit of these aims and objectives it wishes to comment on the implications of the Local Development Plan as amended by the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 8th November 2018.
The Plan will clearly have far-reaching implications for Brentwood's public transport network. First, it changes significantly the size and distribution of the borough's population and the consequent additional requirements for ways to access work, health and education, shopping and leisure. Secondly it will add to the already problematic traffic congestion issues at known pinch-points in the borough, which are already making it very difficult for bus operators to maintain a regular and efficient service.
It is therefore a matter of extreme concern for the Association that there are only four references to public transport in the document citing preferred allocations.
Most are in the aspirational vein of the Strategic Objectives
* Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well
connected to bus and/or rail connections.
* Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including
electric vehicles charging points and other measures.
* Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or
network of green transport corridors.
This contrasts with health and school capacity, which are dealt with in some detail.
There are no references to traffic congestion, to which the Plan will clearly contribute. There are three references to bus services, one in the strategic objective and two in relation to one preferred site for an employment site which "has the potential" for development of bus services i.e. there are none at the moment.
It is difficult to see how a plan can be called strategic without proper consideration of public transport (i.e. buses as rail transport relates to travel in and out of the borough) within the borough. There is no mention of how congestion, which already inhibits travel within the borough and is predicted to increase even without the additional housing and business development.
There is limited scope for road improvements in the borough and additional developments are
outside the control of the planning authority. Increased congestion will impact on the ability of bus
operators to provide a regular and efficient service, reducing the extend to which they will be taken
up by users and increasing the likelihood that they will prove uneconomic and be withdrawn.
The impact of the proposed allocations
Central Area
The Ford Offices are excluded from this section and allocated to the Outer Area in the table below as
the site, although served by buses, is too far for most people to consider the station walkable while
Brentwood High St most certainly is not.
It is assumed that most people would find it possible to walk to Brentwood station and to the High
Street. A regular bus service is available from Warley (Council Depot) and from close to the Shenfield
sites (Priests Lane is walkable to Brentwood High Street but probably closer to Shenfield Station).
Outer Area
The sites in the outer area (beyond reasonable walking distance) present some difficulty. Some (Sow
& Grow and the three Warley sites (Ford Offices, Mascalls Lane and Pastoral Way) are close to bus
routes to Brentwood Station and High Street. For convenience, residents may choose to drive rather
than wait for the regular bus services (to which they have to walk). Brook Street has a regular bus
service to the High Street but not to the station and people are likely to drive there rather than
change buses in the High Street.
Ingatestone
The Ingatestone developments are just about walkable from the station and the limited number of
shops in Ingatestone High Street. The train service from Ingatestone is less frequent than from
Shenfield and people are therefore likely to drive there rather than use their local station. There is a
half-hourly bus service into Brentwood but many people are likely to opt to drive.
Northern Villages
Existing bus services are not sufficiently attractive to residents to persuade them to use them rather
than to drive. The addition of 169 additional units is unlikely to change the economics until bus
companies can justify later evening services for returning commuters and socialising residents. It is
likely than buses will remain very much the less favoured option. The consequence is higher volumes
of traffic on feeder roads into Brentwood such as the already-congested A128 and Doddinghurst
Road.
Dunton Garden Village
It is likely that residents of the proposed Dunton Garden Village will look towards Basildon and
Lakeside for their shopping and leisure activities, meaning that the injection of consumer spend in
the core settlement of Brentwood is likely to be minimal. The demand for public transport will
reflect this, with the benefit of increased capacity and potential new routes spread laterally along
the A127/A13 corridor than northwards into the rest of the borough.
Congestion
Any additional or enhanced bus services into Brentwood will have to cope with increased congestion
in the mornings on the A128 through Herongate and Ingrave - in fact it is difficult to see how much
more traffic can be accommodated on this section of road even without additional developments.
Brentwood's centre is already heavily congested at peak times, especially since the County Council's
revised school transport policy has left many parents from the Northern Villages in particular reliant
on private transport. The congestion is acute on the A128 from Pilgrims Hatch into Brentwood and
from Herongate/Ingrave, with consequent congestion on Shenfield and London Roads. There are
other bottlenecks in Kings Road and around the cluster of schools in Sawyers Hall Lane.
All of this will only get worse as the number of vehicles follows the predicted increase and the
addition of more than 2,000 homes around Brentwood but outside walking distance (and excluding
Ingatestone and Dunton) will only make things worse.
There will be consequences for parking (already barely adequate at peak times), pollution with the
levels of gases and particulates increasing to the detriment of people's health, and for the viability of
commercial bus services as their reliability and regularity is challenged.
All this makes the Plan's strategic objective ("to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure
development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections") a massive challenge.
Commercial partners will not join until the revenue benefits are clear and the costs defined. It is
unlikely this will precede the developments. In some cases (Northern Villages) the proposed
developments are too small to make more than a marginal difference to the economics of public
transport but they will suffer most if the road system is catastrophically congested.
The Other Strategic Objective
The Plan offers the following objective: "to improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough
and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors".
Cycling and walking are technically possible in the central and outer areas now. In practice
Brentwood is a hostile environment for both cyclists and pedestrians. For the former, pavements are
in a degraded state across the borough and the County Council's belated allocation of £700,000
across the County in reality allows little scope for massive improvement. Opportunities to negotiate
crossings in the High Street and immediate area are few and far between, with the priority always
seeming to be swung towards motorised traffic and the mantra of keeping traffic flows constant.
For cyclists, Brentwood is a potential death trap, with the residual potholes that fail to meet ECC
criteria for repair a constant and potentially lethal hazard. The general absence of cycle lanes
militates against safe use of the main roads; junctions are structured for vehicles and not bicycles.
For the outer areas, the high speed of traffic on the main routes, the narrowness of lanes and the
absence of cycle lanes militates against their use.
Conclusion
The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users recognises the imperative on Brentwood Borough Council to
provide additional housing in the area. It is, however, deeply concerned that the number and
distribution of proposed new dwellings will, if car ownership remains unchanged, place an
impossible burden on the existing road system and in particular on the existing network of bus
services. Delays to buses caused by congestion will not encourage greater use - and we fear the
reverse, with proportionately more people using private transport.
With no reference in the Plan to innovative solutions such as park-and-ride, and only lip service paid
to the encouragement of cycling and walking as an alternative, the Association fails to see how the
requirement that delivery of the Plan is environmentally sustainable can be met.
David Jobbins
Vice Chair, Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association represents the interests of users of public transport in the Brentwood district.
Its aims and objectives are fourfold:
* To make representations on behalf of Brentwood's bus and rail users on the local services that are currently available and to campaign for new services to be .
* To campaign for more investment in local bus and rail services.
* To have regular dialogue with the local transport providers and Essex County Council.
* To work with other organisations and individuals to improve and develop local bus and rail services in our area.
In pursuit of these aims and objectives it wishes to comment on the implications of the Local Development Plan as amended by the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 8th November 2018.
The Plan will clearly have far-reaching implications for Brentwood's public transport network. First, it changes significantly the size and distribution of the borough's population and the consequent additional requirements for ways to access work, health and education, shopping and leisure. Secondly it will add to the already problematic traffic congestion issues at known pinch-points in the borough, which are already making it very difficult for bus operators to maintain a regular and efficient service.
It is therefore a matter of extreme concern for the Association that there are only four references to public transport in the document citing preferred allocations.
Most are in the aspirational vein of the Strategic Objectives
* Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well
connected to bus and/or rail connections.
* Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including
electric vehicles charging points and other measures.
* Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or
network of green transport corridors.
This contrasts with health and school capacity, which are dealt with in some detail.
There are no references to traffic congestion, to which the Plan will clearly contribute. There are three references to bus services, one in the strategic objective and two in relation to one preferred site for an employment site which "has the potential" for development of bus services i.e. there are none at the moment.
It is difficult to see how a plan can be called strategic without proper consideration of public transport (i.e. buses as rail transport relates to travel in and out of the borough) within the borough. There is no mention of how congestion, which already inhibits travel within the borough and is predicted to increase even without the additional housing and business development.
There is limited scope for road improvements in the borough and additional developments are
outside the control of the planning authority. Increased congestion will impact on the ability of bus
operators to provide a regular and efficient service, reducing the extend to which they will be taken
up by users and increasing the likelihood that they will prove uneconomic and be withdrawn.
The impact of the proposed allocations
Central Area
The Ford Offices are excluded from this section and allocated to the Outer Area in the table below as
the site, although served by buses, is too far for most people to consider the station walkable while
Brentwood High St most certainly is not.
It is assumed that most people would find it possible to walk to Brentwood station and to the High
Street. A regular bus service is available from Warley (Council Depot) and from close to the Shenfield
sites (Priests Lane is walkable to Brentwood High Street but probably closer to Shenfield Station).
Outer Area
The sites in the outer area (beyond reasonable walking distance) present some difficulty. Some (Sow
& Grow and the three Warley sites (Ford Offices, Mascalls Lane and Pastoral Way) are close to bus
routes to Brentwood Station and High Street. For convenience, residents may choose to drive rather
than wait for the regular bus services (to which they have to walk). Brook Street has a regular bus
service to the High Street but not to the station and people are likely to drive there rather than
change buses in the High Street.
Ingatestone
The Ingatestone developments are just about walkable from the station and the limited number of
shops in Ingatestone High Street. The train service from Ingatestone is less frequent than from
Shenfield and people are therefore likely to drive there rather than use their local station. There is a
half-hourly bus service into Brentwood but many people are likely to opt to drive.
Northern Villages
Existing bus services are not sufficiently attractive to residents to persuade them to use them rather
than to drive. The addition of 169 additional units is unlikely to change the economics until bus
companies can justify later evening services for returning commuters and socialising residents. It is
likely than buses will remain very much the less favoured option. The consequence is higher volumes
of traffic on feeder roads into Brentwood such as the already-congested A128 and Doddinghurst
Road.
Dunton Garden Village
It is likely that residents of the proposed Dunton Garden Village will look towards Basildon and
Lakeside for their shopping and leisure activities, meaning that the injection of consumer spend in
the core settlement of Brentwood is likely to be minimal. The demand for public transport will
reflect this, with the benefit of increased capacity and potential new routes spread laterally along
the A127/A13 corridor than northwards into the rest of the borough.
Congestion
Any additional or enhanced bus services into Brentwood will have to cope with increased congestion
in the mornings on the A128 through Herongate and Ingrave - in fact it is difficult to see how much
more traffic can be accommodated on this section of road even without additional developments.
Brentwood's centre is already heavily congested at peak times, especially since the County Council's
revised school transport policy has left many parents from the Northern Villages in particular reliant
on private transport. The congestion is acute on the A128 from Pilgrims Hatch into Brentwood and
from Herongate/Ingrave, with consequent congestion on Shenfield and London Roads. There are
other bottlenecks in Kings Road and around the cluster of schools in Sawyers Hall Lane.
All of this will only get worse as the number of vehicles follows the predicted increase and the
addition of more than 2,000 homes around Brentwood but outside walking distance (and excluding
Ingatestone and Dunton) will only make things worse.
There will be consequences for parking (already barely adequate at peak times), pollution with the
levels of gases and particulates increasing to the detriment of people's health, and for the viability of
commercial bus services as their reliability and regularity is challenged.
All this makes the Plan's strategic objective ("to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure
development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections") a massive challenge.
Commercial partners will not join until the revenue benefits are clear and the costs defined. It is
unlikely this will precede the developments. In some cases (Northern Villages) the proposed
developments are too small to make more than a marginal difference to the economics of public
transport but they will suffer most if the road system is catastrophically congested.
The Other Strategic Objective
The Plan offers the following objective: "to improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough
and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors".
Cycling and walking are technically possible in the central and outer areas now. In practice
Brentwood is a hostile environment for both cyclists and pedestrians. For the former, pavements are
in a degraded state across the borough and the County Council's belated allocation of £700,000
across the County in reality allows little scope for massive improvement. Opportunities to negotiate
crossings in the High Street and immediate area are few and far between, with the priority always
seeming to be swung towards motorised traffic and the mantra of keeping traffic flows constant.
For cyclists, Brentwood is a potential death trap, with the residual potholes that fail to meet ECC
criteria for repair a constant and potentially lethal hazard. The general absence of cycle lanes
militates against safe use of the main roads; junctions are structured for vehicles and not bicycles.
For the outer areas, the high speed of traffic on the main routes, the narrowness of lanes and the
absence of cycle lanes militates against their use.
Conclusion
The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users recognises the imperative on Brentwood Borough Council to
provide additional housing in the area. It is, however, deeply concerned that the number and
distribution of proposed new dwellings will, if car ownership remains unchanged, place an
impossible burden on the existing road system and in particular on the existing network of bus
services. Delays to buses caused by congestion will not encourage greater use - and we fear the
reverse, with proportionately more people using private transport.
With no reference in the Plan to innovative solutions such as park-and-ride, and only lip service paid
to the encouragement of cycling and walking as an alternative, the Association fails to see how the
requirement that delivery of the Plan is environmentally sustainable can be met.
David Jobbins
Vice Chair, Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association represents the interests of users of public transport in the Brentwood district.
Its aims and objectives are fourfold:
* To make representations on behalf of Brentwood's bus and rail users on the local services that are currently available and to campaign for new services to be .
* To campaign for more investment in local bus and rail services.
* To have regular dialogue with the local transport providers and Essex County Council.
* To work with other organisations and individuals to improve and develop local bus and rail services in our area.
In pursuit of these aims and objectives it wishes to comment on the implications of the Local Development Plan as amended by the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 8th November 2018.
The Plan will clearly have far-reaching implications for Brentwood's public transport network. First, it changes significantly the size and distribution of the borough's population and the consequent additional requirements for ways to access work, health and education, shopping and leisure. Secondly it will add to the already problematic traffic congestion issues at known pinch-points in the borough, which are already making it very difficult for bus operators to maintain a regular and efficient service.
It is therefore a matter of extreme concern for the Association that there are only four references to public transport in the document citing preferred allocations.
Most are in the aspirational vein of the Strategic Objectives
* Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well
connected to bus and/or rail connections.
* Secure the delivery of new infrastructure to support a lower carbon future including
electric vehicles charging points and other measures.
* Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or
network of green transport corridors.
This contrasts with health and school capacity, which are dealt with in some detail.
There are no references to traffic congestion, to which the Plan will clearly contribute. There are three references to bus services, one in the strategic objective and two in relation to one preferred site for an employment site which "has the potential" for development of bus services i.e. there are none at the moment.
It is difficult to see how a plan can be called strategic without proper consideration of public transport (i.e. buses as rail transport relates to travel in and out of the borough) within the borough. There is no mention of how congestion, which already inhibits travel within the borough and is predicted to increase even without the additional housing and business development.
There is limited scope for road improvements in the borough and additional developments are
outside the control of the planning authority. Increased congestion will impact on the ability of bus
operators to provide a regular and efficient service, reducing the extend to which they will be taken
up by users and increasing the likelihood that they will prove uneconomic and be withdrawn.
The impact of the proposed allocations
Central Area
The Ford Offices are excluded from this section and allocated to the Outer Area in the table below as
the site, although served by buses, is too far for most people to consider the station walkable while
Brentwood High St most certainly is not.
It is assumed that most people would find it possible to walk to Brentwood station and to the High
Street. A regular bus service is available from Warley (Council Depot) and from close to the Shenfield
sites (Priests Lane is walkable to Brentwood High Street but probably closer to Shenfield Station).
Outer Area
The sites in the outer area (beyond reasonable walking distance) present some difficulty. Some (Sow
& Grow and the three Warley sites (Ford Offices, Mascalls Lane and Pastoral Way) are close to bus
routes to Brentwood Station and High Street. For convenience, residents may choose to drive rather
than wait for the regular bus services (to which they have to walk). Brook Street has a regular bus
service to the High Street but not to the station and people are likely to drive there rather than
change buses in the High Street.
Ingatestone
The Ingatestone developments are just about walkable from the station and the limited number of
shops in Ingatestone High Street. The train service from Ingatestone is less frequent than from
Shenfield and people are therefore likely to drive there rather than use their local station. There is a
half-hourly bus service into Brentwood but many people are likely to opt to drive.
Northern Villages
Existing bus services are not sufficiently attractive to residents to persuade them to use them rather
than to drive. The addition of 169 additional units is unlikely to change the economics until bus
companies can justify later evening services for returning commuters and socialising residents. It is
likely than buses will remain very much the less favoured option. The consequence is higher volumes
of traffic on feeder roads into Brentwood such as the already-congested A128 and Doddinghurst
Road.
Dunton Garden Village
It is likely that residents of the proposed Dunton Garden Village will look towards Basildon and
Lakeside for their shopping and leisure activities, meaning that the injection of consumer spend in
the core settlement of Brentwood is likely to be minimal. The demand for public transport will
reflect this, with the benefit of increased capacity and potential new routes spread laterally along
the A127/A13 corridor than northwards into the rest of the borough.
Congestion
Any additional or enhanced bus services into Brentwood will have to cope with increased congestion
in the mornings on the A128 through Herongate and Ingrave - in fact it is difficult to see how much
more traffic can be accommodated on this section of road even without additional developments.
Brentwood's centre is already heavily congested at peak times, especially since the County Council's
revised school transport policy has left many parents from the Northern Villages in particular reliant
on private transport. The congestion is acute on the A128 from Pilgrims Hatch into Brentwood and
from Herongate/Ingrave, with consequent congestion on Shenfield and London Roads. There are
other bottlenecks in Kings Road and around the cluster of schools in Sawyers Hall Lane.
All of this will only get worse as the number of vehicles follows the predicted increase and the
addition of more than 2,000 homes around Brentwood but outside walking distance (and excluding
Ingatestone and Dunton) will only make things worse.
There will be consequences for parking (already barely adequate at peak times), pollution with the
levels of gases and particulates increasing to the detriment of people's health, and for the viability of
commercial bus services as their reliability and regularity is challenged.
All this makes the Plan's strategic objective ("to improve public transport infrastructure and ensure
development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections") a massive challenge.
Commercial partners will not join until the revenue benefits are clear and the costs defined. It is
unlikely this will precede the developments. In some cases (Northern Villages) the proposed
developments are too small to make more than a marginal difference to the economics of public
transport but they will suffer most if the road system is catastrophically congested.
The Other Strategic Objective
The Plan offers the following objective: "to improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough
and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors".
Cycling and walking are technically possible in the central and outer areas now. In practice
Brentwood is a hostile environment for both cyclists and pedestrians. For the former, pavements are
in a degraded state across the borough and the County Council's belated allocation of £700,000
across the County in reality allows little scope for massive improvement. Opportunities to negotiate
crossings in the High Street and immediate area are few and far between, with the priority always
seeming to be swung towards motorised traffic and the mantra of keeping traffic flows constant.
For cyclists, Brentwood is a potential death trap, with the residual potholes that fail to meet ECC
criteria for repair a constant and potentially lethal hazard. The general absence of cycle lanes
militates against safe use of the main roads; junctions are structured for vehicles and not bicycles.
For the outer areas, the high speed of traffic on the main routes, the narrowness of lanes and the
absence of cycle lanes militates against their use.
Conclusion
The Brentwood Bus and Rail Users recognises the imperative on Brentwood Borough Council to
provide additional housing in the area. It is, however, deeply concerned that the number and
distribution of proposed new dwellings will, if car ownership remains unchanged, place an
impossible burden on the existing road system and in particular on the existing network of bus
services. Delays to buses caused by congestion will not encourage greater use - and we fear the
reverse, with proportionately more people using private transport.
With no reference in the Plan to innovative solutions such as park-and-ride, and only lip service paid
to the encouragement of cycling and walking as an alternative, the Association fails to see how the
requirement that delivery of the Plan is environmentally sustainable can be met.
David Jobbins
Vice Chair, Brentwood Bus and Rail Users' Association

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

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

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

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

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

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



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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



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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

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

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

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

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

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

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

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

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

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

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DUNTON HALL

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

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

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

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

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


EAST HORNDON HALL

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

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


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


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

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



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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

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

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


Further representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.