The Council is broadly supportive of Policy BE16 and acknowledges the importance of ensuring that new developments are sustainably supported by transport infrastructure. Policy BE16 is considered to accord with the minimum requirements under national policy and relevant legislation. Brentwood Borough Council, by taking an evidence-led approach and informed by Essex County Council, should satisfy itself and the Inspector that policy BE16 (and other relevant policies) can adequately ensure that both planned and unplanned growth will not place undue pressure on the strategic highway network, including the A127, without securing the necessary mitigation or improvements. The transport impacts of proposed developments, and the scope for improvements and other mitigation, should duly consider the impacts on communities and businesses beyond Brentwood's immediate administrative boundary, including those in Rochford District

Amend Policy BE16 A. as follows -

A. Developments should seek to ensure that any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.

4. Consistent with National Policy.

The wording in Criteria A needs to be amended to ensure that the policy is positively prepared, and is consistent with paragraph 108 of the NPPF, particularly criterion c.

A ground up rethink of the plan, starting from a realistic assessment of what development might have a transport and traffic impact that was acceptable and practicably capable of being resolved.

The council's selection of sites fails to adhere to BE16 (Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development) A. "Developments should seek to ensure that they will not have an unacceptable transport impact and/or any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion) and on highway safety can be mitigated to an acceptable degree." The truth of this is borne out by the failure of the council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (3.46, figure 3.10) to model all of the junctions necessary to assess traffic conditions in central Brentwood - the Sawyers Hall Lane/ A1023 Shenfield Road junction, which acts as a de facto bypass for the town's central, and most problematic junction, Wilson's Corner (the A128 Ongar Road/A128 Ingrave Road/A1023 Shenfield Road/A1023 High Street junction), being the most conspicuous example. It is also borne out by a Traffic Survey done by the developers at the time of the Highwood Hospital redevelopment (just off the A128 Ongar Road), in 2010, which had to assume that the then extant and approved version of a scheme for the development of the William Hunter Way car park site (R14 in this plan), would be built, and factor its effect in to traffic levels. That WHW scheme involved only 14 maisonettes and a retail development, but its effect, added to the proposed Highwood Hospital scheme, caused the Traffic Survey's figures for Ongar Road to exceed not just practical capacity, but theoretical capacity at all the junctions in Ongar Road at some point during the working week. Nevertheless that proposed Highwood Hospital scheme was built, and several further developments have added more traffic to this road since, but the current Plan will have the unavoidable effect of piling the traffic from R12, R14, R15, R16 and R17 (=628 proposed dwellings) (and, almost certainly, R07, R10, R11, R13, R18, R19, R20 and R03 (=1189 proposed dwellings)) onto either the A128 Ongar/Ingrave Road, or the A1023, and thus the Wilson's Corner junction. Furthermore, the IDP's Sustainable Transport Measures figure (figure 3.15 in the November 2018 Local Plan decision meeting version of the documents) shows no proposal for any Brentwood or Shenfield town centre road or junction improvements, and no junction mitigations in the town centre (figure 3.16). That despite the fact that, as the IDP admits (3.13), "What makes Brentwood different to many towns is that there has been no major relief, gyratory, or one-way system within the town centre. Therefore traffic continues to be funnelled into [a] road/ route system that has not significantly changed for hundreds of years. The narrowness of the roads in the town centre minimises the scope of local highway interventions." Starting with that last piece of evidence, no responsible council would propose the sites Brentwood's Local Plan does.

For clarity, we suggest that the wording is amended to reflect that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of the full Local Plan rather than the developments within it individually. Any single development may have no discernible impact whereas cumulatively the Local Plan impacts may require mitigation. Accordingly we are looking for evidence on the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan. Similarly, you may wish to amend the wording of policies relating to individual allocations.

Thank you for giving Highways England (HE) the opportunity to comment upon the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan setting out your development needs, policies and strategies over the period 2016 to 2033. Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.
In the case of the Local Plan, Highways England is interested in the potential impact that the development might have upon the M25 Junctions 28 and 29 and the A12. We would be concerned as to whether there would be any adverse safety implications or material increase in queues and delays on the strategic road network as a result of your Local Plan development.
We have reviewed the Pre-Submission Plan and have the following comments:
As you are aware we have been in discussions with yourself about the transport assessment for the Local Plan concerning the impacts upon the SRN. We are continuing to liaise to look at how any required mitigation at M25 Junctions 28 and 29 may be assessed outside of this Regulation 19 consultation. This is implied if not specifically mentioned in Paragraph 5.101 of the main consultation document text. We look forward to the outcome of your Local Plan impact assessments on the two M25 junctions.
Policies BE11 and BE16 cover Strategic Transport Infrastructure and Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development. Both policies The former states "any significant impacts from the development on the highway network on highway safety must be effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree in line with policy BE16. The latter policy states that new development will be required to "provide reasonable and proportionate financial contributions/mitigation measures where necessary to mitigate the transport impact of the development to an acceptable degree...Such measures should be provided to meet the first or early occupation of a site...".
For clarity, we suggest that the wording is amended to reflect that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of the full Local Plan rather than the developments within it individually. Any single development may have no discernible impact whereas cumulatively the Local Plan impacts may require mitigation. Accordingly we are looking for evidence on the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan. Similarly, you may wish to amend the wording of policies relating to individual allocations, particularly the strategic allocations for Dunton Hills in Policy R01 (ii) under Transport Impact Mitigations and Brentwood Enterprise Park in Policy E11. These two policies suggest that impacts for these two developments will be assessed in isolation rather than as part of a bigger Local Plan picture.
We note that Paragraph 5.102 Point 2 of the main submission document identifies M25 Junction 28 improvements being undertaken by Highways England and that further engagement will be required on this scheme. Additionally, Point 3 states that mitigation is being considered at M25 Junction 29 in relation to the Brentwood Enterprise Park development. Lower Thames Crossing is also mentioned as impacting upon Junction 29. Paragraph 5.102 is specifically related to third party mitigation to the network. From the Transport Assessment of the Local Plan we are aware that additional Local Plan development is likely to impact upon these two junctions and potentially requiring mitigation. Again, we will continue to liaise in relation to this assessment.
We hope that you find these comments useful and we look forward to further correspondence in due course. We will be in touch again when we receive details from you of the Local Plan impact assessments upon M25 Junctions 28 and 29.

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL). We have previously responded to the Site Allocations Reg. 18 consultation (attached) and our comments remain valid although it should be noted that the full opening of the Elizabeth Line and hence the transfer of safeguarding powers from Crossrail Ltd to TfL has now been delayed. An announcement on a revised timescale is expected shortly. Colleagues in TfL Commercial Development will respond separately regarding the site at Brentwood Station Car Park in which they have a potential development interest

In addition TfL has the following comments to make on Local Plan policies:

Policy BE11 A and B and Para. 5.96
TfL supports the intention to maximise the value of railway connectivity and specifically the improvements brought by the Elizabeth Line by ensuring that new development is well connected to rail stations by foot, cycle and public transport and introducing parking controls where necessary. Prioritising access to stations by sustainable modes of transport and seeking improvements to links, access, public realm and station capacity through developer contributions, alongside parking controls, is consistent with the approach being taken in London. TfL notes the reference to TfL rail services and the Elizabeth Line in 5.96. As stated above the revised timescale for the start of Elizabeth Line services is to be announced shortly.

Policy BE11C
As highway authority for the A12 and A127 roads within London TfL welcomes the intention to seek highway improvements and particularly to seek suitable non highway measures and/or improvements to walking and cycling that may help to mitigate traffic impacts as a result of development. When assessing impacts and providing mitigation, the cross boundary impacts of new development on the Transport for Road Network within London should be taken into account

5.106 - 5.107
We agree with the outlined approach of working with relevant bodies regarding the impact of the Lower Thames Crossing and any mitigations that are needed on the A127, A12 and local road network, and would be happy to work with you and other bodies to ensure the appropriate mitigation is delivered

Policy BE12 - Car limited development
TfL welcomes the inclusion of a policy on car limited development which reflects the approach being taken in London

Policy BE13 - Sustainable means of travel and walkable streets
TfL welcomes the priority given to walking, cycling and public transport and the aim of facilitating sustainable modes of transport through new development. Again this is broadly consistent with the approach being taken in London. However, we would be grateful if mention could be made of the Healthy Streets Approach that is being implemented in London through the Mayor's Transport Strategy and Policy T2 of the draft London Plan

Policy BE16 - Mitigating the transport impacts of development
TfL welcomes the requirement to submit Transport Assessments/Statements and the requirement for mitigation where necessary
Best wishes
Richard Carr

For the reasons explained above, criterion A should be amended to read:
"Developments should not give rise to an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the residual cumulative impacts on the road networks should not be severe".

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