1.0 Introduction
1.0.1 Thank you for consulting the Basildon & Brentwood Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) on the above emerging Local Development Plan (LP) Document.
1.1 In reviewing the context, content and recommendations of the LP Document and its current phase of progression, the following comments are with regard to the Healthcare provision on behalf of the STP
2.0 Existing Healthcare Position in the Emerging Plan Area
2.1 The LP Document covers the administrative area of Brentwood.
2.2 Currently, within the administrative area, healthcare provision incorporates a total of 9 GP Practices, 13 pharmacists, 9 dental surgeries, 10 Opticians, 2 community clinics and 2 community hospitals.
2.3 These are the healthcare services available that this Local Plan must take into account in formulating future strategies.

For the reasons explained above, amend the policy to identify that the requirement relates to schemes of 500 units or more.

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.

It is recommended that the policy should either be omitted and dealt with by the text to the PSLP or justified against thresholds or site specific requirements

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

It is recommended that the policy should either be omitted and dealt with by the text to the PSLP or justified against thresholds or site specific requirements

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