The Council is broadly supportive of the provisions of policy HP01 and does not have any specific concerns around its soundness or legal compliance.

To make the Local Plan sound and legally compliant, the necessary changes are to :

1) Require that a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding on "developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings".

Given the expected demand for self‐build (as referenced in point #67 of the 2011 Housing Strategy for England), I would propose that the minimum 5% self‐build should also apply to developments of 60 or more dwellings.

2) "The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged".

For this last sentence, provide stronger wording other than "encouraged".

For example, including wording received in personal communication from the housing minister (attached), as presented below:

"encouraged, with the number of self‐build plots allocated per site proportional to the local demand for self‐build within Brentwood as noted on the local self‐build register"

Suggest to also reference "The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015".

As referenced by Brandon Lewis MP in communication to Rt Hon Sir Eric Pickles MP (attached), the
number of self‐build plots allocated per site should be proportional to the local demand for self‐build within Brentwood as noted on the local self‐build register.

A minimum of 5% self-build on development sites of 500 (N=3 sites in LDP) does not meet the demand for self-build in the local area.

Note that the original Local Plan had 5% self-build on sites with more than 100 dwellings. Despite previous representations, the focus on self-build has been diluted in the latest LDP.

It is considered the stark contrast between the house size requirements for Basildon and Brentwood in DHGV, which is on a boundary location, means it needs to have taken into account the South Essex SHMA in determining the housing mix for DHGV so that it can better sit within the landscape of the strategic context of South Essex, which is not reflective of the wider Brentwood Borough HMA. Policy HP01 and R01 should be amended in light of this.

This letter serves as the approved response from Basildon Borough Council to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan Regulation 19 public consultation.
Please be advised that for all of the consultation points below, the Council would like to attend the future oral hearings as part of the Plan's Examination in Public.
As a neighbouring authority, a Duty to Cooperate public body and a key partner in the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA), Basildon Borough Council has taken the opportunity to review and consider the potential implications for the Basildon Borough that may arise from Brentwood Borough Council's Local Plan and determine whether it considers it to be compliant with necessary legislation and whether it meets the tests of soundness.
1) Is the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 legally compliant?
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 and supporting documents. It considers that whilst it disagrees with aspects of the Plan from a soundness perspective that it is however legally compliant.
2) Does the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meet the tests of soundness?
The Council does not believe that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2016-2033 meets the tests of soundness in all of its policy areas. It therefore makes the following 1 representation in support of an aspect of the Plan and 17 representations where it considers the Local Plan is unsound and requires modifications to make it sound.
Supporting Representations
Consultation Point: Chapter 1
Soundness - Effectiveness & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, it considers that joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere. To demonstrate effective and on-going joint working, strategic policy-making authorities should
planning.policy@brentwood.gov.uk
SERVED BY EMAIL ONLY
prepare and maintain one or more Statements of Common Ground, documenting the cross-boundary matters being addressed and progress in cooperating to address these.
A major step forward for effective cooperation has been the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed between Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Essex County, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock Councils to form the ASELA. This has ensured that there is now a more coordinated, collective working on a 'place vision' for the sub region, which recognises one of the key delivery tools will be a statutory Joint Strategic Plan (JSP). A Statement of Common Ground has also been agreed between the ASELA to ensure it is embedded into the Local Development Schemes of all the local planning authorities with resources committed to its preparation during 2019/2021. This will ensure it sets the foundations for planning at a broader spatial level, determining how growth and infrastructure can be better coordinated to positively influence place-making in South Essex and provide a more prosperous area for people to live, work, study and visit. The Statement of Common Ground recognises that the planning landscape of South Essex is not perfect and not all authorities can wait for the JSP to be completed before their Local Plans are advanced. It accepts that the JSP will have to be mindful, in particular of Basildon, Brentwood and Castle Point's and the reality that their Local Plans are already too advanced to be paused.
The Council has noted Brentwood Council's commitment in paragraph 1.13 to work as a member of ASELA on a process to develop a long-term growth ambition that would underpin strategic spatial, infrastructure and economic priorities across the wider sub-region. It is acknowledged that this is in accordance with the South Essex JSP Statement of Common Ground - June 2018; of which Basildon and Brentwood Borough Councils are one of the seven joint signatories.
Work on the JSP is at an early stage with Regulation 18 consultation due to take place during 2019, followed by Regulation 19 in 2020, with examination in public and adoption not expected to be until 2020/2021. It will cover a longer plan period extending to 2038; slightly longer than both the Basildon and Brentwood Local Plans. Paragraph 1.38 of the Brentwood Borough Local Plan references that its own allocations can contribute towards some of the delivery of early growth during the JSP plan-period; a position that is also applicable for the soon to be submitted Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034. It is welcomed that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan has mirrored the intent of the Basildon Borough Local Plan in Paragraphs 1.35-1.38 that following the adoption of the JSP, it may be necessary to review the Plan, at least in part, to ensure any opportunities for additional growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough, that may otherwise be additionally identified in the JSP, can be realised. The Council fundamentally supports this policy approach as meeting the soundness tests of being a) effective and b) in accordance with national policy.
The Council considers this to be compatible to its own position and underpins the collective efforts to get an "effective mechanism" in place to address strategic, cross boundary matters in a more holistic and planned manner that has greater potential to realise positive outcomes to South Essex communities. Looking ahead, the Council embraces the opportunity presented by Brentwood Borough Council being part of the ASELA and the JSP, in order to tackle strategic, cross-boundary matters holistically to ensure sustainable growth solutions are achieved that benefit all communities.
Objecting Representations
Consultation Point: Whole Plan
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 26 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) asserts that effective and on-going joint working between strategic policymaking authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. The Council, as a neighbouring Borough and Duty to Cooperate body, has reviewed and considered previous versions of the Local Plan and its preparatory documents and submitted relevant representations under Regulation 18 consultations. The Council formally wishes to express its disappointment that given fundamental
evidence has been 'in development', but not published during much of its preparation. It has been significantly difficult, therefore, to digest the Plan's rationale and approach as it has evolved. This includes the entire Green Belt Review, Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study, Local Plan Viability Assessment and Transport Assessment which were not published until the month before Brentwood Council considered the Publication Local Plan in November 2018. It is accepted that not all evidence can be completed by each consultation stage and much may remain as a continual draft until Regulation 19, however it is considered this has created a lack of transparency during critical plan-making stages and contributed to the scale of representations from Basildon Council for its Regulation 19 response.
During 2017/2018, officers from Basildon, Thurrock and Essex County Councils, facilitated by an officer from Rochford District Council, jointly sought to understand and address with Brentwood Borough Council how the Brentwood Borough Local Plan, in particular the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) strategic allocation, could impact on neighbouring authority areas, particularly in terms of infrastructure and service provision. Meetings were held, and correspondence exchanged, in an effort to seek solutions and resolutions to previous Regulation 18 objections/ observations from all three Councils. The intention was to appreciate the evidenced rationale for identifying the DHGV strategic allocation and ensuring neighbouring authorities could engage more effectively to identify and manage cross-boundary impacts. Despite this engagement, it is considered that not all information and assurances sought from Brentwood Borough Council have been provided and this brings into question the soundness of the rationale and choices made in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan.
.
As such, all of Basildon Council's previous responses to Regulation 18 consultations are enclosed as supplementary evidence to the Regulation 19 consultation; affirming that many of the comments made in respects this consultation response have been raised previously, but remain unanswered or inadequately addressed. It is uncertain how the Plan has been informed by this previous input. It is considered that this is not a justified approach and has resulted in a Plan which is less effective at tackling strategic, cross-boundary issues.
Consultation Point: SP02: Managing Growth, Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is acknowledged that Brentwood Borough Council commissioned David Couttie Associates (DCA) in 2013 to undertake a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and define its Housing Market Area (HMA). This concluded that Brentwood Borough's administrative area was a self-contained HMA. This is different to the Basildon Borough, which is a sub-area (with Castle Point) of the much larger South Essex HMA, which also incorporates Rochford, Southend on Sea and Thurrock. The Brentwood SHMA, which was most recently updated in November 2018, forms part of the evidence base for identifying the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for housing in Brentwood Borough. However, NPPF/2019 (published after the Publication Local Plan was approved by Brentwood Borough Council in November 2018, in February 2019) now requires housing needs to be calculated in accordance with the Standard Methodology set out in national Planning Practice Guidance.
Basildon Borough Council has acknowledged that this has seen the OAN for Brentwood Borough change three times over the course of the last year as follows:
* In January 2018, the Brentwood SHMA January 2018 identified an OAN for Brentwood of 380. This was calculated using the SHMA Planning Practice Guidance that underpinned the NPPF/2012;
* In July 2018, NPPF/2018 was launched introducing the standard methodology for calculating objectively assessed housing need. The standard methodology requires the use of the most recently published household projections as the starting point. At that time, the 2014-based CLG Household Projections formed that starting point resulting in an OAN for Brentwood of 452 homes per annum; and
* In September 2018, 2016-based ONS Household Projections were published, revising the starting point for the standard method calculation. For Brentwood Borough, these projections showed a reduced rate of household growth going forward, resulting in a reduced housing requirement for Brentwood of 350 homes per annum.
It has been noted by Basildon Council that the Brentwood Borough Local Plan uses this latest 2016 projection to define the minimum OAN target.
The reduced rate of household growth in the 2016-based ONS Household Projections was highlighted as a nation-wide issue driving down the OAN calculations in around two-thirds of authorities, although not Basildon. This resulted in the standard methodology only identifying around 215,000 homes per annum supply for England against a national policy target of 300,000 homes per annum. Consequently, in October 2018 MHCLG launched a consultation on technical changes to the standard methodology, seeking for authorities to continue using the 2014-based CLG Household Projections in the interim. On the 19 February 2019, the Government's response to this consultation was published indicating that the Government will be making clear in national Planning Practice Guidance that the 2016-based ONS Household Projections should not be used for the standard methodology calculation, and the 2014-based CLG Household Projections should be used instead.
The Brentwood Local Plan therefore, which makes provision for 456 homes per annum does meet just over its full OAN for housing, having regard to the standard methodology calculation of need based on the 2014 CLG Household Projections (452 homes per annum), as explained in required by Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20190220 and Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 2a-005-20190220) that has been adjusted following the Government's response to the technical consultation.
The Brentwood Local Plan, however, as drafted and approved by Brentwood Council in November 2018, sets out in Paragraphs 4.15-4.16 that the housing target for Brentwood is set at 350 homes per annum and it proposes an annual housing supply buffer of 20% taking total supply of 456 homes per annum. This was considered at the time as offering additional flexibility throughout the plan period. This is now not the case as the 2016-based ONS Household Projections must be discounted, as above, with the baseline reverting to the 2014-based projections. This results in a Plan which will now have an insignificant flexibility in its land supply; a component which was considered justified and fundamental to the Plan's strategy when it was approved in November 2018.
When this new position is viewed alongside the variable housing target, it is considered this could cause the plan to be less effective and justified. The initial housing target of 310 homes per annum between 2016 and 2023, should, according to the Plan, increase to 584 homes per annum beyond 2023. It is noted that this increase is substantially reliant on the new Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, which according to the Housing Trajectory set out in Appendix 1 is expected to commence housing delivery in 2023/24, within the first five years of the Plan. That scheme is expected to deliver at the initial ambitious rate of 100 homes per annum upwards from thereon, reaching 300 homes per annum by 2026. These are considered to be overly optimistic delivery assumptions for such a large scale Green Belt allocation, which whilst mostly in a single land ownership that could facilitate delivery, still requires for the boundaries of the Green Belt to be amended on adoption of the Plan (assuming it is found lawful and sound), detailed masterplanning, essential infrastructure programming on-site and off-site to ensure sustainable development can be achieved. It is not clear from any published evidence how such a delivery rate has been formulated having acknowledged these issues and therefore this is challenged in terms that it is not justified.
Summary: As a result in the change to the NPPF, the Plan also now has very little flexibility within its land supply should anything happen to cause delivery of homes to become delayed during the plan period; which was a fundamental principle to the Plan's strategy approved in November 2018. There is an unjustified over-reliance on DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor to
contribute towards supply at an accelerated rate. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, 4.15-4.16 and Appendix 1
Modification: 1) The Local Plan must be adjusted to incorporate previously discounted development sites, particularly in the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor to restore the flexibility in site supply across a broader range of spatial locations, thereby improving the Plan's effectiveness and deliverability. 2) The methodology to the Local Plan's Housing Trajectory needs to be published and open for comment and challenge of its assumptions.
Consultation Point: PC02 and PC03
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
Paragraph 80 of the NPPF establishes that planning policies should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. The Council notes the new employment land requirements and job growth needs evidence undertaken by Lichfields in 2018. It is considered the amount of new employment land being provided is broadly sufficient to ensure that the Brentwood Borough meets its overall forecast employment land needs, including forecast new needs and losses from allocations and structural change.
It is considered however that the policy makes the assumption that there are no capacity issues for existing infrastructure, or any needs for supporting infrastructure to be provided and it is considered that this lack of clarity will make the policy ineffective, unjustified and will counteract creating conditions to support business growth which the NPPF seeks. As the Local Plan does with its housing target in Policy SP02 and Appendix 1, PC02 and PC03 should therefore incorporate additional provisions to manage the release and expansion of the locations within the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor, supported by an Employment Land Trajectory in a new Appendix, to make it more effective, justified and consistent with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC02 and PC03.
Modifications: PC02 and PC03 should be amended to incorporate a staggered delivery target for new employment land, supported by a new Employment Land Trajectory within the Plan's Appendices, to coordinate the phased release of new and expanded employment land to ensure it can be linked to specific and necessary upgrades to supporting infrastructure. This will minimise the impact growth will have on existing highway routes in particular, which could otherwise impact on cross-boundary issues within the wider South Essex economic corridor.
Specialist Accommodation
Consultation Point: HP07
Soundness - Effectiveness
The Council has noted that the Brentwood Gypsy and Traveller Local Needs Accommodation Assessment 2018 (GTAA) assessed the need for Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Brentwood Borough for the period 2016 to 2033 as being 13 pitches. It acknowledges that there were no Travelling Showpeople identified as living in the Brentwood Borough, so there are no current or future accommodation needs for this community.
The evidence is noted as identifying a requirement of 11 additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches (5 total current need and 6 total future need) to be developed between the period 2016 to 2033 and makes a further 10% allowance for Gypsy and Traveller households whose travelling status was recorded as being "unknown", increasing the need to 12 pitches. It is acknowledged that since the completion of the evidence, one Gypsy and Traveller pitch has been lost through an approved change of use application and to replace this lost pitch, the Plan has added an additional pitch to its target, meaning the total requirement of Gypsy and Traveller pitches is 13 pitches.
Whilst it is noted that Brentwood Council proposes to meet this need through the incorporation of
a minimum 5 Gypsy and Traveller pitches as part of the Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation and through the regularisation of 8 existing pitches elsewhere in the Brentwood Borough. This however implies that 8 pitches will contribute towards meeting current need and only 5 pitches towards future need, when 6 are in fact required. The Council therefore objects to Policy HP07.
Modification: The GTAA identified the need for an additional pitch to meet future needs and therefore whilst the Policy HP07 quotes a minimum of 5 new pitches to be provided within its minimum target, the Plan could be more effective by setting 6 pitches as the target.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Positively Prepared & Effectiveness.
The Council is concerned that there is no acknowledgement in the supporting text to the Brentwood Local Plan as to how it will address any unmet needs arising from Greater Essex authorities for the provision of accommodation for Gypsies, Travellers & Travelling Showpeople should it arise. The Plan should therefore recognise and support the principle of this approach going forward, to ensure that there will be a technical approach in place to support any neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople need. This will ensure that the same process is applied throughout Essex therefore making the plan more positively prepared and effective for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople communities. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Essex Planning Officers' Association Protocol for Unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Needs 2018 has been developed collaboratively across Essex under the Duty to Cooperate, including with Brentwood Borough Council. It should be referenced in the supporting text to Policy HP07 - within Paragraphs 6.52-6.62. This will help ensure that the Plan recognises and supports the principle of this approach going forward, underling the technical approach in place to support how any requests from neighbouring authorities with any potential unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling will be considered in the future and then addressed as necessary through the Plan review process.
Consultation Point: Paragraphs 6.52-6.62
Soundness - Effectiveness and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 9 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) establishes that "...local planning authorities should set pitch targets...which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area, working collaboratively with neighbouring local planning authorities." There is also no mention however in the Brentwood Local Plan of the strategic and cross-boundary matter of Transit Sites, for which there is a study underway during 2019/2020 by the Essex Planning Officers' Association on behalf of all Greater Essex local planning authorities, including Brentwood Borough. Whilst it has not yet been possible to robustly assess the need for transit sites in Essex due to data inconsistencies across Greater Essex, changes have been made to the unauthorised encampment data collection process and an update to Essex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Local Needs Accommodation Assessment will follow during 2019/2020 to determine whether any transit sites are needed in Greater Essex to help manage development pressures.
Whilst this cannot be included within Policy HE07 due to uncertainty, given that it is a current strategic matter for the Duty to Cooperate, with work in train to seek a resolution, it is considered more effective, for the Plan as a whole, to indicate how any such needs identified in future updates to the GTAA will be dealt with to make it more effective and consistent with the PPTS. The Council therefore objects to Paragraphs 6.52-6.62.
Modification: The Council considers the Local Plan would be more effective and more consistent with the PPTS if the strategic, cross-boundary issue of transit sites, covered by the Duty to
Cooperate were to be supported by a new paragraph explaining the context behind the issue and that it will be addressed as part of its first review.
Consultation Point: PC08 and Figure 7.7
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes that Nathaniel Litchfield & Partners prepared a Retail and Commercial Leisure Study (RCLS14) for Brentwood Council in 2014. The study identifies that Brentwood Town Centre as the main shopping centre in Brentwood Borough, with Shenfield, Ingatestone and Warley Hill providing smaller scale District Centres offering more local services, whilst smaller communities are supported by a number of village shops/local parades. The relationship between Brentwood Town Centre and larger competing centres including Basildon Town Centre is also noted, which is consistent with the Council's own evidence set out in the South Essex Retail Study 2017.
It is also acknowledged however that the Local Plan's settlement hierarchy proposes that DHGV Village and West Horndon will incorporate District Centres, similar in scale and role to Shenfield and Ingatestone. Figure 7.7 suggests this will apply to just DHGV, but caveats that this may change as a result of masterplanning or new evidence. Whilst the Council accepts that some form of local centre provision that could provide local shopping, community facilities and healthcare facilities would be a sustainable approach to the planning of any new community, helping to reduce the need to travel to larger centres to meet community needs, the positioning of the Garden Village needs to consider how it could impact on other centres and facilities in the locality, including those outside the Brentwood Borough, which may be closer and higher-order than other Brentwood Borough alternatives.
The Council cannot determine from any of Brentwood's published evidence as to what assessments have been carried out to determine the likely impact of installing new District Centres in West Hordon or DHGV on Basildon Borough's Laindon Town Centre. Assuming a central location within the site, DHGV District Centre would be around 2km to its west and West Hordon is only one stop by rail. Laindon Town Centre is the Basildon Borough's smallest town centre, which is currently undergoing a multi-million pound regeneration by Swan Housing Association to redevelop it into a new mixed use commercial and residential development called Laindon Place. It already provides a health centre, community centre, police station and library, which are all set to remain.
It is not considered acceptable as set out in footnote 10 to Figure 7.7 that the "the designation of the DHGV service centre(s) as a District Shopping Centre and/or Local Centre(s) and any subsequent Primary Shopping Area could be altered further by the South Brentwood Masterplan as this should remain a function of policy and not be delegated. The Council therefore objects to Policy PC08 and Figure 7.7.
Modification: Footnote 10 of Figure 7.7 should be amended to remove reference to the South Brentwood Masterplan as the role and order of the designated centre should be established by policy only. The Plan should have been informed by evidence which has tested cross-boundary impacts of installing new District Centres in close proximity to nearby centres including Laindon Town Centre and what measures will be taken in policy to limit any impact. If this evidence does not exist, the District Centre should be removed from DHGV, retaining some local centre provision to ensure DHGV can be sustainable and to enable the Plan to be effective and justified.
Consultation Point: Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Chapter 7 and Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. The Local Plan's Spatial Strategy is termed "Transit-orientated Growth", concentrating growth in the Local Plan in two transit corridors running through the borough. The 'Central Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the
A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street Station, and the Elizabeth Line; and the 'Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor', with the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
The Local Plan states that the site selection process for the housing allocations has been based upon the Spatial Strategy, and a sequential approach to selecting sites for development. It is accepted that this approach is intended to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within compatible locations.
The Council acknowledges that Brentwood Borough Council has now published much of its previously missing evidence as set out in previous Regulation 18 representations. The Council is not satisfied that the Plan has been adequately informed by its evidence, and it questions whether the Spatial Strategy reached is therefore justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted the two Growth Corridors. It has reflected however that there are fundamental distinctions between them, which do not appear to have influenced site selection choices in a justified way. The Central Brentwood Growth Corridor is the location of nationally and regionally managed and maintained infrastructure - the A12 & M25 (Highways England) and Elizabeth Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Transport for London) and East Anglia Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by Abellio East Anglia), which helps to put this investment into use through the growth locations. The South Brentwood Growth Corridor, whilst at its far west includes the M25, the remainder of the corridor consists the A127 (maintained by Essex County Council) and Essex Thameside Line (maintained by Network Rail and operated by c2c). It is not considered they offer comparable choices in terms of the capacity of these transport connections and the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, by the presence of nationally and regionally maintained infrastructure.
In reviewing the appropriateness of the Spatial Strategy, an important element of the Plan's Sustainability Appraisal involves appraising 'reasonable alternatives' to inform development of the Plan. Four reasonable site alternatives in the Central Brentwood Corridor have been disregarded (AECOM Sustainability Apprial - Table 5.2), despite having few constraints and being able to tap into the potential for movement capacity offered by this superior corridor. This is considered to be in conflict with sustainable development when sites which have significant constraints to development or delivery have been included within the Plan, at the expense of sites which have fewer constraints. This raises fundamental concerns about the Plan's spatial distribution of growth and whether it has made the most of the capacity in this alternative corridor, before embarking on a new standalone settlement at DHGV in the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor. The Council has noted that four sites on Table 5.2 of the Sustainability Appraisal have the potential to deliver 2,200 homes through extensions to villages, thereby questioning the need for a new settlement of the scale envisaged to deal with growth in the plan-period, which it considers means the Spatial Strategy is unjustified. The Council therefore objects to Chapter 3, the Sustainability Appraisal and land use allocations in Chapter 6 and 7.
Modification: Using the Sustainability Appraisal and other evidence, the Plan should select sites within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor that provide opportunity for extensions to towns and villages that can encourage more sustainable travel choices and take advantage of the superior infrastructure available. This should help encourage commuting behaviour to shift away from private car use and therefore make this location a more sustainable and viable option to concentrate growth. Chapter 3 should be modified as a result along with all land use allocations in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7.
Consultation Point: Sustainability Appraisal
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
Paragraph 16 of the NPPF advises amongst other things that Plans should be prepared with the objective of contribution to the achievement of sustainable development. The Council challenges whether the Sustainability Appraisal has informed the choices made in the Spatial Strategy as
required by national policy, given it states that there was an early intention by Brentwood Council to deliver at least one new large-scale strategic site, which could be judged as artificially limiting the exploration of other plausible and deliverable urban/ village extensions. It is considered that Brentwood Council's lack of a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) between 2011 and 2018 has negatively impacted upon previous Regulation 18 drafts, which could have evolved differently having been informed by such evidence, demonstrating that other suitable, available and deliverable site options were present. This is unjustified, not consistent with the Plan's Strategic Objective SO1 and not in accordance with the NPPF. The Council therefore objects to the Sustainability Appraisal.
Modification: The Sustainability Appraisal should be reviewed to test an alternative strategy which does not include the artificial assumption that at least one new large scale strategic site should be incorporated into the Local Plan and then it should be amended accordingly. The Plan should then be reviewed informed by the outcome.
Consultation Point: BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106
The Council has reviewed the Brentwood Borough Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) accompanying the Local Plan. It is acknowledged that this is intended to be a 'live' working document, much the same as the Basildon Borough IDP.
Paragraph 5.105 acknowledges that in respects of the South Brentwood Growth Corridor "...the provision of sustainable transport in this area is poor". The Council considers that it is surprising therefore that there are no specific highway mitigation measures provided in the Plan, just a statement that "the Council will work proactively with developers, key stakeholder and service providers to implement...new measures which would seek to mitigate transport impacts of sites on the highway infrastructure...". Whilst it is acknowledged within the Plan of the joint working being undertaken by ASELA, and the A127 Task Force for the Route Management Strategies and Joint Strategic Plan, both of which are supported by Basildon Council. The Council does however consider that highway modelling should have been tested to determine impact in development locations in Brentwood Borough, so it can be clear in policy terms how negative impacts are being mitigated and therefore prove that the Plan's spatial choices are reasonable in sustainability terms. It is questionable whether it can be adequately demonstrated by the Brentwood Local Plan that the allocations chosen, represent the most sustainable option without identifying and testing the viability of specific highway mitigation measures that will be necessary to make them deliverable and sustainable. Without this work, Brentwood Borough could find its ability to unlock the capacity to deliver new communities and homes, particularly at an accelerated pace as suggested in Appendix 1, becomes hindered by a lack of infrastructure capacity and outline solutions to overcome them. It is not considered that Policy BE11 is therefore effective at delivering the Plan's Strategic Objectives.
It is noted that Paragraph 5.106-5.107 acknowledges the Lower Thames Crossing and the outline concept of its preferred route and that it is not expected to have a direct impact on Brentwood Borough in terms of land safeguarding. It is however suggested that the Plan also acknowledges that following the engagement of authorities in Essex, including Basildon Borough Council, Highways England has accepted that its impact modelling was deficient in determining how driver behaviour in South Essex and further afield could alter when the scheme opens. This is particularly an issue for this Plan, as its includes land allocations in West Horndon and the DHGV along the A127 corridor, which will be within a reasonable proximity to the Lower Thames Crossing and could therefore be impacted by it. It should be recognised that Highways England are now taking steps to incorporate growth proposals set out in Local Plans in the vicinity to address this point and identify any measures needed to the scheme or nearby routes to mitigate any adverse impacts. The Council therefore objects to Policy BE11 and Paragraphs 5.106.
Modification: 1) BE11 and the land allocations should have been informed by highway modelling that tests highway mitigation solutions to mitigate impact caused by development. This work should be repeated and the Plan amended in light of its findings.
2) Paragraph 5.106 should be amended to include reference that local authorities have secured additional testing within the Lower Thames Crossing modelling being undertaken by Highways England to determine the extent of local impacts on the road network arising from Local Plan growth.
Consultation Point: R01 & HP01
Soundness - Justified
The DHGV is within close proximity of the administrative boundaries with Basildon & Thurrock Boroughs and it is considered that there may be implications for the future geographical extent of both the Brentwood and South Essex Housing Market Areas as the housing markets evolve.
Furthermore, the policy requirements of the Plan are informed by data collected from Brentwood Borough, or its population; the significant majority of which is located away from this area to the north. Consequently, there is a difference in what might be delivered in DHGV compared to what could be delivered just slightly to the east in Basildon Borough; which might distort the housing markets as they adjust to the new development taking place around the boundary. The following table has been prepared using Figure 6.1 from the Plan and the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Assessment that has informed the Basildon Borough Local Plan 2014-2034 and it is considered both these SHMA's should instead be used to inform the housing mix policy for DHGV. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01 and HP01.
Modification: It is considered the stark contrast between the house size requirements for Basildon and Brentwood in DHGV, which is on a boundary location, means it needs to have taken into account the South Essex SHMA in determining the housing mix for DHGV so that it can better sit within the landscape of the strategic context of South Essex, which is not reflective of the wider Brentwood Borough HMA. Policy HP01 and R01 should be amended in light of this.
Consultation Point: R01(D)(h)
Soundness - Justified and consistent with national policy.
The Council has noted that Policy R01(D)(h) has set a target to retain 50% of the strategic allocation for green and blue infrastructure. Given the location is over 259ha, it is agreed that this helps enshrine the Garden Community values within the policies which will guide the masterplan and the site's development. However, the Council questions whether this is intended to be a permanent resource, given it also determines that a further 2,300 homes could be brought forward in the strategic location after 2033; taking its indicative total to around 4,000 homes. It is considered that if it is not explained clearly in any published evidence, as to whether any of the retained space for green and blue infrastructure would need to be used to meet this higher development scale after 2033. The Council's understanding of this, is frustrated by a lack of published evidence on DHGV, which would enable Basildon Borough to effectively understand the nature, extent and potential implications (positive or negative) of its proposals for DHGV. This would make the policy more justified and compliant with national policy. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(D)(h).
Modification: Clarify within R01 and its supporting text whether the Green Infrastructure proposed to amount to 50% of the land area is a permanent resource or whether the projected growth in the area beyond the plan-period would need to utilise any of the green infrastructure for growth. If the latter, the percentage should be adjusted accordingly.
Consultation Point: SP02, R01 and Paragraph 8.83-8.84
Soundness - Justified
The Council welcomes the publication of the Brentwood Borough Green Belt Study 2018. It is acknowledged that this comprises two parts; Part 1 is a full Green Belt assessment parcelling up the Green Belt and Part 2 as a separate site assessment of individual sites promoted through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). This is a similar format to the Basildon Borough Green Belt Study.
For Part 1, a scale of high - low was used to assess the contribution 70 separate parcels made to the Green Belt. The DHGV parcel (17) score "Moderate - High". It was one of 21 parcels to score "Moderate - High". 19 parcels scored "High". The remainder scored lower.
In respect of the tests, Parcel 17 was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Important
countryside gap between settlements (amber)
Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with a historic town. (green)
The Council does not consider it to be clear however, from the published methodology, as to why having scored highly in relation to the Purpose 1 and Purpose 3, as to why this parcel is assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when there are other parcels which make high contributions towards two of the purposes have been assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes; and are therefore valued to a greater degree as serving towards the purpose of Green Belt.
In respects of Part 2 assessment, the DHGV allocation (Site 200) was assessed alongside other HELAA sites. A total of 92 sites were assessed. The DHGV site assessment matches the entire Parcel 17 assessed in Part 1. Five sites were assessed as making a "high" contribution towards Green Belt purposes. A further 18 sites were assessed as making a "moderate to high contribution". Site 200 - 'Entire land east of A128, south of A127' was assessed as making a "moderate to high" contribution. The remaining 69 sites were assessed as making a less significant contribution to Green Belt purposes.
The DHGV site was assessed as follows:
* Purpose 1 - to check unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas: Not contained i.e. development would constitute urban sprawl (red)
* Purpose 2 - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another: Would result in significant separation reduction (amber)
* Purpose 3 - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment: Functional countryside (red)
* Purpose 4 - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns: Limited relationship with historic town (green)
The outcomes of Part 2 are considered to be consistent with Part 1. However, it is not clear from the methodology as to why given the site scored highly in relation to Purpose 1 and Purpose 3,
this parcel is then assessed as only making a "moderate to high" contribution to Green Belt purposes, when it could potentially have been assessed as making a "high" contribution for those reasons.
The Council recognise that there is now, no longer an issue with missing evidence in this regard, which it had repeatedly raised in previous Regulation 18 consultation responses. However, the Council considers that the issue now is one of how the Green Belt evidence has informed the Plan. It is not clear how the policy judgements arrived at have considered that development in this strategic gap, which helps prevent settlement coalescence can be adequately mitigated. The Council does not believe that when accounting for this evidence that the Plan has reached a justified position in respects of whether the Green Belt evidence has informed the Local Plan policies, to the degree which the proposals in the DHGV area are set out. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP02, R01 and Paragraphs 8.83-8.84.
Modification: The Plan should demonstrate in more detail, through a tool such as a Topic Paper, how its site selection choices have been informed by the Green Belt Study 2018 and should any inconsistencies occurs the Plan's land use allocations and justification should be changed.
Consultation Point: Paragraph 9.36 and R01(II)
Soundness - Justified & Effective
Brentwood Council will be aware from joint Duty to Cooperate meetings with elected members and officers that during 2017, efforts were made by both Basildon and Brentwood Councils to determine whether a West Basildon urban extension could be delivered in the Basildon Borough Local Plan, alongside DHGV, whilst maintaining a sense of visual separation between both developments. To this end, a joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Study was commissioned by both Councils, which I have enclosed as evidence against this representation, to consider how both Council's Green Belt and land management policies, either side of the boundary, could be coordinated in this location going forward. This was to also help determine whether it was possible for DHGV to co-exist with development in West Basildon without causing harm to heritage and environmental assets within Basildon Borough.
The Council has noted that the Plan does now includes specific references that the joint borough boundary needs a degree of landscape and Green Belt treatment to maintain a visual separation with the edge of Basildon Borough, but it does not elaborate as to how this will be achieved. The Council therefore finds its disappointing that this joint study does not form part of the referenced and published evidence base for the Plan, nor do the outcomes from this work appear to have informed Policy R01(II) as sought through the earlier Duty to Cooperate engagement. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II) and Paragraph 9.36.
Modification: The measures set out in the Joint Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options 2017 should be acknowledged in Paragraph 9.36 and incorporated into Policy 9.36 to make it more justified and effective at mitigating the impact the development would otherwise have on the Basildon Borough. This would lead to an effective policy outcome identified as being necessary during Duty to Cooperate engagement to manage this cross-boundary issue. It is considered that as a matter of principle, this would help address the Council's previous Regulation 18 objections as to how the boundary would be treated and how the new community could exist side by side the existing smaller settlement of Dunton Wayletts in the Basildon Borough.
Consultation Point: SP04 and R01(I)
Soundness - Effectiveness, Justified & Compliance with National Policy
It is noted that the Plan assumes that all commuters will use West Horndon railway station and other areas in Brentwood Borough to access a means of travelling to other places. It fails however to investigate the possible impacts on Basildon Borough's road and rail infrastructure, as a
neighbouring authority, arising from commuters or other road users choosing to access facilities within the Basildon Borough instead.
The Transport Assessment (PBA, 2018) discusses measures to ensure more effective bus access to and from West Horndon Station - serving an area including the new DHGV, as well as other employment sites within South Brentwood Growth Corridor. It is noted however that the need for new connections into Basildon Borough in terms of walking, cycling, public transport or road do not appear to be mentioned as being necessary to make it sustainable.
The Brentwood Borough IDP states that a new multi-modal interchange will be created at West Horndon Station. This will serve the DHGV, Childerditch, West Horndon and Enterprise Development sites. It also mentions the possibility that this could serve any future northern Thurrock developments. The Plan states that, the proposed DHGV settlement's transport mitigation measures will include potential dedicated bus route(s) connecting the development with West Horndon station and improvements at West Horndon station for vehicular, segregated cycle and public transport access from surrounding developments, as well as cycle storage and a bus interchange facility. The Council is therefore confused that in seeking to mitigate DHGV's impacts on the surrounding areas there is no mention of any impact being evaluated as spilling over into Basildon Borough and needing its own mitigation.
Laindon railway station, with three platforms and starter trains has greater commutable capacity than West Horndon and could become an alternative choice for residents within DHGV, despite a lack of new connections hampering their ability to make that choice easily without driving, via the A127. Whilst the Plan seeks to make provision for a new interchange at West Horndon to capture these movements more locally, should commuters still seek to use alternative stations including those outside of the Brentwood Borough such as Laindon, this will lead to increase demands on those stations' facilities, particularly parking, as well as the routes to get to them. Policy SP04 does set out the approach required by Paragraph 34 of the NPPF, but it does not explicitly mention that it has accounted for the spatial context of DHGV and the existing spatial form of the Brentwood Borough, where its higher-order settlements are further to the north. It does not state that it will support the possibility of developer contributions being used to mitigate this impact outside the Brentwood Borough in higher-order settlements which are closer that Brentwood Borough's own settlements, but outside the Brentwood Borough. This is considered to disregard how new residents living in the DHGV could behave in the future in seeking to access services and how this impact will therefore be adequately mitigated.
It seems that it an effort for the new DHGV to be self-sustaining, as set out in Paragraph 9.14, it has meant the Plan remains unclear, as to how it will relate to its neighbouring areas, particularly in terms of access and connectivity. This is considered a core sustainability principle for new developments and whether in exercising that choice, its residents will use what is to be provided within Brentwood Borough remains to be seen. They could use alternative routes (namely the A127 and West Mayne into Laindon) to access different facilities already available in closer higher order settlements outside Brentwood Borough. Considering that there are existing services that are already shared between the Borough's residents, e.g. schools, it is considered essential for a more practical and pragmatic approach to be adopted should the DHGV be permitted, including the policy reality that until such a time as the critical mass for new homes is established on-site, it is more likely that Basildon Borough's facilities in Laindon will be picking up the demands of new users arising from the neighbouring Brentwood Borough in the short-medium term.
There is no evidence presented by Brentwood Borough Council which indicates that DHGV's growth demands have been evaluated, in combination, with the projected demands arising from the Basildon Borough Local Plan. The Plan should not assume that such growth can just be absorbed by the nearby infrastructure and services in Basildon Borough and investment through developer contributions will be necessary. The infrastructure in the Basildon Borough has been evaluated for its capacity, its ability to grow and the scale of investment necessary to accommodate the growth in the Basildon Borough Local Plan to enable the Basildon growth to occur and there has not been enough information published during Regulation 18 (as set out in previous
representations) to be able to incorporate any testing of Brentwood's growth in as well. The Council therefore objects to Policy SP04 and R01(II).
Modification: The Plan should be modified to recognise that some impacts are likely to be cross-boundary and additional provisions should be incorporated into SP04 and RO1(I) that will support using S106/CIL arising from development in Brentwood Borough to be used for investment outside the Brentwood Borough, where it can be proven that there is reasonable likelihood of a direct or residual impacts otherwise being caused that need to be mitigated. This will make the Plan more effective, justified and in accordance with national policy.
Consultation Point: R01(I) and Appendix 1
Soundness - Justified & Effective
The Council notes the housing trajectory included within the Plan at Appendix 1. With regards to DHGV it is assumed that delivery will commence in 2022/23 (within the next five years) at a rate of 100 homes per annum, climbing to 300 homes per annum by 2026/27. As set out in earlier representations in respects of housing supply, this seems overly optimistic given that the allocation is currently within the extent of the Green Belt, requires masterplanning and will need to go through a planning application and elements of the condition discharge process before development on site can even commence. Development commencement on-site meanwhile, will be reliant on essential utility and infrastructure provision. No evidence is provided alongside the Plan, or within the associated Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), as to how the housing trajectory in general has been developed. Furthermore, there is no specific evidence published setting out the evidence base, or any form of a development framework/ masterplan for the DHGV that explains how the proposed accelerated rate of delivery will be possible to achieve.
The Council considers that the speed and level of growth in this boundary location may have implications for Basildon Borough's own housing market and risks the ability for it to be able to deliver housing at the rates necessary for its own housing trajectory. Early residents of the DHGV will rely on some services and facilities outside the village to meet their initial needs, unless these facilities were all to be front-loaded and wait for the population to gradually build up to make full use of them. As an example, the DHGV will require new primary and secondary school provision. However, whilst the Brentwood IDP shows the primary provision in particular being delivered early, it is understood to not be economically viable to operate a school with low pupil numbers, and it may be the case that the village grows for a number of years with these pupils travelling to other schools in the locality (principally within the Basildon Borough), whilst operational primary and then secondary education provision is secured and the village becomes more self-sufficient. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(I) and Appendix 1.
Modification: The Council therefore seeks for evidence to be provided demonstrating the realistic delivery trajectory for DHGV so that the potential short-medium term pressures on services and facilities in nearby settlements can be assessed, understood and planned for by service providers and neighbouring authorities. This will help ensure adequate mitigation provisions can be put in place to reduce any potential negative impacts on Basildon Borough residents living nearby. This will make the Plan justified and effective.
Consultation Point: R01(II)
Soundness - Effectiveness
Notwithstanding that the Council objects to many of the fundamental soundness principles of the DHGV, the Council would like to seek assurances written into Policy R01(II) that it will be invited by Brentwood Borough Council to become more involved in the detailed design and delivery of the new village. This will ensure that the strategic and cross-boundary impacts covered by the Duty to Cooperate and raised during the Council's response to the Plan at Regulation 18 and 19 stages are managed effectively during the development's implementation stages (assuming it is
considered sound), alongside the Basildon Borough Local Plan's own implementation. The Council therefore objects to Policy R01(II).
Modification: The Council would like a criterion added into Policy R01(II) under a new heading "Collaborative Approach" that will make it a requirement for neighbouring authorities to be engaged during the detailed design stages of DHGV to ensure strategic and cross boundary impacts are managed effectively during implementation.
This concludes the Council's representation.

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.

Remove the Building Regulation Part M Category and self/custom build requirements from the plan

Brentwood Local Plan
Pre-Submission Document

CONTENTS
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Context 2
2 National Planning Policy 3
2.1 National Planning Policy Framework 3
2.2 Planning Practice Guidance 4
3 Legal Requirements 7
3.1 Duty to Cooperate 7
3.2 Sustainability Appraisal 8
4 Spatial Strategy 9
4.1 Vision and Strategic Objectives 9
5 Managing Growth 10
5.1 Policy SP02: Managing Growth 10
5.2 Policy SP04: Developer Contributions 11
6 Resilient Built Environment 12
6.1 Policy BE02: Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency 12
7 Housing Provision 13
7.1 Policy HP01: Housing Mix 13
7.2 Policy HP06: Standards for New Housing 13
8 Conclusion 15
8.1 Overall Conclusion 15

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 These representations are submitted by Gladman in response to the current consultation on the Brentwood Local Plan Pre-Submission Document. Gladman specialise in the promotion of strategic land for residential development with associated community infrastructure.
1.1.2 Gladman has considerable experience in the development industry across a number of sectors, including residential and employment development. From that experience, we understand the need for the planning system to provide local communities with the homes and jobs that are needed to ensure that residents have access to a decent home and employment opportunities.
1.1.3 Gladman also has a wealth of experience in contributing to the Development Plan preparation process, having made representations on numerous local planning documents throughout the UK and having participated in many Local Plan public examinations. It is on the basis of that experience that the comments are made in this representation.
1.1.4 Through this submission, Gladman have sought to highlight a number of issues with the Brentwood Local Plan. Gladman submit that the Council will need to carefully consider some of its policy choices and ensure that its evidence base is up-to-date and robust in light of changing circumstances and the changes brought about by the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019).
1.2 Context
1.2.1 The Revised Framework (2019) sets out four tests that must be met for Local Plans to be considered sound. In this regard, we submit that in order for it to be sound it is fundamental that the Thurrock Local Plan is:
* Positively prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
* Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
* Effective - deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
* Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

2 NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY
2.1 National Planning Policy Framework
2.1.1 On 24th July 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published the Revised National Planning Policy Framework which was subsequently updated in February 2019. These publications form the first revisions of the Framework since 2012 and implement changes that have been informed through the Housing White Paper, The Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places consultation and the draft Revised Framework consultation.
2.1.2 The Revised Framework (2019) introduces a number of major changes to national policy and provides further clarification to national planning policy as well as new measures on a range of matters. Crucially, the changes to national policy reaffirms the Government's commitment to ensuring up-to-date plans are in place which provide a positive vision for the areas which they are responsible for to address the housing, economic, social and environmental priorities to help shape future local communities for future generations. In particular, paragraph 16 of the Revised Framework (2019) states that Plans should:
a) Be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development;
b) Be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable;
c) Be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and operators and statutory consultees;
d) Contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;
e) Be accessible through the use of digital tools to assist public involvement and policy presentation; and
f) Serve a clear purpose, avoiding unnecessary duplication of policies that apply to a particular area (including policies in this Framework, where relevant).
2.1.3 To support the Government's continued objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that the Local Plan provides a sufficient amount and variety of land that can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay .
2.1.4 In determining the minimum number of homes needed, strategic plans should be based upon a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method as set out in the PPG unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach. It is imperative that the emerging Local Plan is formulated on the basis of meeting this requirement as a minimum.
2.1.5 Once the minimum number of homes that is required is identified, the planning authority should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. In this regard, paragraph 67 sets out specific guidance that local planning authorities should take into account when identifying and meeting their housing need. It states:
"Strategic policy-making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their areas through the preparation of a strategic housing land availability assessment. From this planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and likely economic viability. Strategic plans should identify a supply of:
a) specific, deliverable sites for years one to five of the plan , and
b) specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth, for years 6-10 and, where possible, for years 11-15 of the plan.
2.1.6 Once a local planning authority has identified its housing needs, these needs should be met in full, unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of doing so . Local planning authorities should seek to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, resulting in net gains across all three. Adverse impacts on any of these dimensions should be avoided, where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered.
2.1.7 To be considered sound at Examination the emerging Local Plan will need to meet all four of the soundness tests set out in paragraph 35 of the Revised Framework (2019).
2.2 Planning Practice Guidance
2.2.1 The Government published updates to its Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on 13th September 2018. The updated PPG provides further clarity on how specific elements of the Revised Framework should be interpreted when preparing Local Plans. In particular, the updated Housing Needs Assessment chapter of the PPG confirms that the Revised Framework expects local planning authorities to follow the standard method for assessing local housing needs, and that the standard method identifies the minimum housing need figure and not a final housing requirement .
2.2.2 The calculation of objectively assessed needs (OAN) for housing has been a subject of much debate as part of Local Plan Examinations and s.78 appeals since its initial introduction through the Framework in 2012 with interested parties grappling with the issue of OAN with varying outcomes depending on local circumstances. To simplify the assessment the Government, through the Revised Framework has introduced the standardised method which should be undertaken through the 3-stage process outlined at paragraph 005 of the PPG .
2.2.3 Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that whilst the standard methodology to assessing housing needs has been introduced, it is likely that this will be subject to further change. In this regard, it is currently anticipated that the standard method will be adjusted to ensure that the starting point in the plan-making process is consistent with the Government's proposals in Planning for the Right Homes in the Right Places consultation, to ensure that 300,000 homes are built per annum by the mid-2020s. This follows the release of the 2016 based household projections in September 2018, which forecast a lower level of household growth than previously envisaged.
2.2.4 It is therefore important that future iterations of the Local Plan take account of any changes to the standard method for calculating housing needs during the course of their preparation.
2.2.5 Whilst the PPG advises that the standard method is not mandatory, there is a possibility that other methods can be used in exceptional circumstances based on robust evidence in order to deviate from the standard method. Indeed, the PPG is clear that the standard method only identifies the minimum number of homes required to meet population needs and does not take into account the variety of factors which may influence the housing required in local areas such as changing economic circumstances or other factors which may change demographic behaviour. Where additional growth above historic trends are likely to occur, then local planning authorities should include an appropriate uplift to the housing numbers to meet the need in full. It is important that this uplift is undertaken prior to and separate from the consideration of the demographic baseline assessment of need and how much of this need can be accommodated in a housing requirement figure. Circumstances where the need to apply an uplift may be appropriate include, but are not limited to:
- Where growth strategies are in place, particularly where those growth strategies identify that additional housing above historic trends is needed to support growth or funding is in place to promote and facilitate growth (e.g. housing deals);
- Where strategic infrastructure improvements are planned that would support new homes;
- Where an authority has agreed to take on unmet need, calculated using the standard method from neighbouring authorities, as set out in a statement of common ground;
- Historic delivery levels where previous delivery has exceeded the minimum need identified it should be considered whether the level of delivery is indicative of greater housing need; and
- Where recent assessments such as Strategic Housing Market Assessments suggest higher levels of need than those proposed by a strategic policy making authority, an assessment of lower need should be justified.
2.2.6 In addition, it is important for local planning authorities to consider the implications of the standard method on delivering affordable housing need in full. The PPG is clear that the total affordable housing need should be considered in the context of its likely delivery as a proportion of mixed market and affordable housing developments, taking into account the probable percentage of affordable housing to be delivered by open market housing development. If it becomes clear that affordable housing need will not be delivered in full, then an increase to the total housing figures included in the plan should be considered where it could help to deliver the required number of the affordable homes.
2.2.7 In the event that an alternative approach is used it should only be considered sound if it exceeds the minimum starting point. The PPG is clear that any alternative approach with results in lower housing need figure than the standard method should be considered unsound as it does not meet the minimum housing need required.  
3 LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
3.1 Duty to Cooperate
3.1.1 The Duty to Cooperate (DtC) is a legal requirement established through section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. The DtC requires local planning authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues through the process of ongoing engagement and collaboration.
3.1.2 The Revised Framework (2019) has introduced a number of significant changes for how local planning authorities are expected to cooperate including the preparation of Statement(s) of Common Ground (SOCG) which are required to demonstrate that a plan is based on effective cooperation and has been based on agreements made by neighbouring authorities where cross boundary strategic issues are likely to exist. The Revised Framework (2019) sets out that local planning authorities should produce, maintain, and update one or more Statement(s) of Common Ground (SOCG), throughout the plan making process . The SOCG(s) should provide a written record of the progress made by the strategic planning authorities during the process of planning for strategic cross-boundary matters and will need to demonstrate the measures local authorities have taken to ensure cross boundary matters have been considered and what actions are required to ensure issues are proactively dealt with e.g. unmet housing needs.
3.1.3 As demonstrated through the outcome of the Coventry, Mid Sussex, Castle Point and St Albans examinations, if a Council fails to satisfactorily discharge its DtC a Planning Inspector must recommend non-adoption of the Plan. This cannot be rectified through modifications.
3.1.4 Gladman welcome the South Essex Authorities' commitment to the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan (JSP) covering Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock. All of these authorities have significant strategic issues to contend with not least, the delivery of substantial housing and economic growth and the need to review Green Belt boundaries at a strategic scale.
3.1.5 It is however disappointing, that the JSP will not allocate specific sites which will be left for the individual Local Plans to take forward. The level of housing need in South Essex is significant and delivery has fallen substantially behind need for a long period of time. There is therefore an immediate need to address this situation; and for Local Plans to have to await the adoption of the JSP before sites are taken through the Local Plan process and finally released from the Green Belt, is simply going to result in inevitable further delay.
3.1.6 The JSP could release the strategic sites for development in partnership with the constituent authorities leaving a certain proportion of housing need to be addressed by the Local Plans on non-strategic sites. This would allow the release of Green Belt for development as early in the process as possible, thus meeting urgent need in an expedient manner.
3.1.7 The JSP also needs to follow a statutory plan preparation process with requisite consultation and examination to ensure that it has full weight in the planning process and to guide the preparation of the Local Plans on a formal basis. If the JSP is simply a non-statutory document, then there is the potential for changes over time in the other authorities to cause significant issues.
3.1.8 Beyond this commitment, there is very little evidence available setting out how Brentwood has discharged its Duty to Cooperate and what outcomes have been achieved through this process. This is especially pertinent because of the need to address unmet housing needs across the HMA.
3.2 Sustainability Appraisal
3.2.1 In accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA), and also incorporate the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA regulations).
3.2.2 The SA/SEA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plan's preparation, assessing the effects of the emerging Local Plan Review proposals on sustainable development when judged against all reasonable alternatives. The Council should ensure that the future results of the SA clearly justify its policy choices. In meeting the development needs of the area, it should be clear from the results of this assessment why some policy options have progressed, and others have been rejected. This must be undertaken through a comparative and equal assessment of each reasonable alternative, in the same level of detail for both chosen and rejected alternatives. The Council's decision-making and scoring should be robust, justified and transparent.
 
4 SPATIAL STRATEGY
4.1 Vision and Strategic Objectives
4.1.1 Gladman has concerns with certain elements of the Spatial Strategy that is being pursued through the Brentwood Local Plan (BLP).
4.1.2 The Plan sets out that one of the overarching driving factors behind the BLP is meeting the housing needs of the borough. However, the Council are using the 2016 Household Projections to calculate the housing needs of the borough which the Government have now confirmed is the incorrect data set to rely upon. Use of the 2014 Household Projections is likely to yield a higher housing requirement and therefore, the Council will need to address this issue before the Plan gets to Examination.
4.1.3 They also set out within the Settlement Hierarchy in Table 2.3 that the development of brownfield land will be prioritised. This requirement has no support in National Policy as Para 117 of the Revised Framework (2019) simply states that substantial weight should be given to the value of using suitable brownfield land. This requirement should therefore be changed to reflect Government guidance.
4.1.4 The prioritisation of brownfield land is also repeated in the Spatial Development Principles section under Paragraph 3.23 which similarly needs amending.
4.1.5 It is also disappointing that in the Vision and the Strategic Objectives, no mention is made of providing housing to meet the needs of the local population or of addressing one of the key challenges facing Brentwood, that of tackling housing affordability. It is therefore suggested that given the emphasis being placed by the Government on fixing the broken housing market, a further Strategic Objective is added to the Plan that specifically relates to the delivery of housing.
 
5 MANAGING GROWTH
5.1 Policy SP02: Managing Growth
5.1.1 The Council sets out in the pre-amble to Policy SP02 that they consider the housing need figure using the Standard Methodology is 350 dwellings per annum using the 2016 Household Projections published by ONS.
5.1.2 However, since the Local Plan was published, the Government has clearly set out that the 2016 Household Projections should not be used for the purposes of establishing the housing need figure under the standard methodology and that the 2014 Household Projections should be used instead.
5.1.3 The Council therefore needs to recalculate the housing need figure using the correct set of data so that it accords with the Framework and is not immediately found unsound on this basis.
5.1.4 It must also be recognised that the standard method only identifies the minimum number of homes required to meet population needs and does not take into account the variety of factors which may influence the housing required in a local area such as changing economic circumstances or other factors which may change demographic behaviour. Where additional growth above historic trends is likely to occur, then local planning authorities should include an appropriate uplift to the housing numbers to meet the need in full. It is important that this uplift is undertaken prior to and separate from, the consideration of how much of this need can be accommodated in the housing requirement.
5.1.5 The Council are seeking to provide an uplift to the base level of housing needs established through the Standard Method but this is intended to provide a buffer in the housing supply to ensure that the housing requirement is met or surpassed. It is not an uplift to take account of the circumstances listed in the PPG (see paragraph 3.1.5 above).
5.1.6 Gladman support the Council's inclusion of a 20% buffer in order to provide flexibility in supply as this will allow the Local Plan to adapt to changes in circumstances such as stalled sites, delay in delivery and sites which do not come forward as envisaged. This is especially important where Local Plans are predicated on the delivery of a small number of large-scale strategic sites.
5.1.7 However, we also consider that the housing requirement included within the Local Plan is not representative of the full housing needs of the area and that factors such as the high housing affordability ratio (11.23 in 2017), continuing economic growth and proximity to London should lead the Council to uplift the housing requirement figure above the minimum identified through the Standard Method. The Council would then still need to include a 20% buffer above this figure, in order to provide the flexibility needed to ensure the housing requirement is met or surpassed.
5.1.8 Gladman also has concerns regarding the Sequential Land Use approach which is set out in Paragraph 4.22 of the Local Plan. This is intended to be used as a Development Management tool to appraise proposals against a sequential land use hierarchy. However, we consider that this goes beyond the guidance set out in National Policy which seeks to maximise the use of brownfield land where possible and where it does not conflict with other policies in the Framework. It is also difficult to see how this approach would work in a Development Management context as applicants would have to demonstrate that there are no other suitable alternative sites which could accommodate the proposed development.
5.1.9 Policy SP02 also sets out a stepped approach to housing delivery within Brentwood which would equate to 310 dwellings per annum 2016-2023 and 584 dwellings per annum from 2023 onwards. Given that Brentwood has struggled to deliver homes over recent years and has in fact, failed to meet the requirements of the recently published Housing Delivery Test, resulting in the need for a 20% buffer to be applied, coupled with the fact that housing affordability in the borough is severe, must lead the Council to the conclusion that it has to address the backlog of housing needs as quickly as possible.
5.1.10 Implementing a stepped approach to the housing requirement will only lead to people having to wait longer for their housing needs to be met which, in the face of the Government's push to address the housing crisis, must be unacceptable.
5.1.11 The Council point to the fact that given the level of Green Belt constraint facing the borough, it is extremely difficult to achieve a five-year housing land supply. However, if the Council allocate a sufficient range and type of site in various locations across the borough, including small scale Green Belt releases, then there is no reason why housing needs cannot be met quicker thus maintaining a 5-year housing land supply.
5.1.12 Gladman do not consider that the Council has sufficient evidence to justify the implementation of a stepped approach to housing delivery and therefore consider the Local Plan to be unsound in this respect.
5.2 Policy SP04: Developer Contributions
5.2.1 Whilst Gladman has no specific comments on the content of Policy SP04, we would wish to voice concern over the myriad of policies contained in the Local Plan which may have implications for development viability. Many of the policies such as Policy SP05, BE01, BE02, BE03, BE09, BE10 etc have requirements within them that will impact on the viability of development schemes. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the cumulative impact of all of these requirements has been considered through the Viability Study, which is a requirement set out at Paragraph 34 of the Framework to ensure that such policies do not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. This gap in evidence needs to be addressed by the Council to ensure that these policies are justified.
 
6 RESILIENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT
6.1 Policy BE02: Sustainable Construction and Resource Efficiency
6.1.1 Gladman are concerned with part (f) of Policy BE02 as it is too onerous and goes beyond National Policy. Part (f) requires all proposals to include commercial and domestic scale renewable energy and decentralised energy as part of new development. This is an extremely onerous requirement, particularly for small schemes where it may not be technically feasible. It could also have a huge impact on development viability.
6.1.2 Paragraph 153 of the Framework allows for planning policies to require development to include decentralised energy supply. However, it also provides a caveat that this is only where it is viable and feasible. Part (f) of Policy BE02 should therefore be amended to reflect this guidance.
 
7 HOUSING PROVISION
7.1 Policy HP01: Housing Mix
7.1.1 Policy HP01 contains a number of development requirements which would be applied to all new development including housing mix, accessible and adaptable dwellings and self and custom build homes.
7.1.2 If the Council wishes to adopt the discretionary accessible and adaptable homes standards as a policy requirement, then this should only be done in accordance with the Revised Framework footnote 46 i.e. where this would address an identified need for such properties and where the standards can be justified. The Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) dated 25th March 2015 stated that "the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPG".
7.1.3 All new homes are built to Building Regulations Part M Category 1 Standards which include such adaptions as level approach routes, accessible front doors and wider internal doors and corridors. If the Government had intended that evidence of an aging population alone justified the adoption of the higher Part M Category 2 or 3 optional standard, then these would have been incorporated as mandatory into the Building Regulations.
7.1.4 We have been unable to locate where the evidence of a need for these standards is contained within the evidence base. Without this evidence, these requirements should be removed from the Local Plan.
7.1.5 Whilst the concept of Self Build and Custom Build Housing is supported, the inclusion of plots on large scale sites does not add to the supply of houses overall (it merely changes the housing mix from one product to another). It is also difficult to assess how it will be implemented given issues around working hours, site access, health and safety etc. that are associated with large scale development sites. The percentage of provision on sites should also be determined on detailed evidence of need and the provision of these plots should also be subject to viability testing.
7.2 Policy HP06: Standards for New Housing
7.2.1 Policy HP06 requires all residential development to have to comply with the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDDS).
7.2.2 If the Council wishes to adopt the NDSS as a policy requirement, then this should only be done in accordance with the Revised Framework footnote 46 i.e. where this would address an identified need for such properties and where the standards can be justified. The WMS dated 25th March 2015 stated that "the optional new national technical standards should only be required through any new Local Plan policies if they address a clearly evidenced need, and where their impact on viability has been considered, in accordance with the NPPG".
7.2.3 We have been unable to locate where the evidence of a need for these standards is contained within the evidence base. Without this evidence, these requirements should be removed from the Local Plan.

 
8 CONCLUSION
8.1 Overall Conclusion
8.1.1 Critical to the success of the South Essex area will be the timely production of the JSP which will define the major growth areas to meet the housing and employment needs across the area and will inform the preparation of the individual Local Plans.
8.1.2 It is essential that through this process, the full needs for housing and employment are met in the areas that people want to live. It is also imperative that the major policy constraint of Green Belt is reviewed in a strategic manner which allows full need to be met and ensures that the new boundaries endure beyond the JSP plan period.
8.1.3 The impact of London will have a heavy influence on the future developments needs of the area and this must also be taken fully into account through the preparation of the JSP.
8.1.4 It is also considered that in order to give the JSP the weight it needs to ensure that the constituent Local Plans deliver its outcomes, the JSP should be a statutory plan which follows the requisite plan preparation process of consultation and subsequent examination.
8.1.5 Gladman have some fundamental concerns with the BLP, particularly with the identification of the level of housing need in the Plan and the implementation of a stepped approach to housing delivery, which would render the BLP unsound if they are not addressed.
8.1.6 Gladman therefore request the right to participate in any forthcoming Local Plan Examination to discuss these concerns orally.

Allocate deliverable sites to meet the diverse needs of older people. Such sites should include those that can come forward in the early part of the plan period to meet immediate needs, and should be distributed across the Borough.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations are submitted on behalf of Clearbrook Group PLC to Brentwood Borough Council's (the Council's) Regulation 19 consultation on the Pre-Submission Local Plan (PSLP).
1.2 Clearbrook Group have an interest in land adjacent to Hillcrest Nurseries, located within Herongate and Ingrave. A location plan showing the boundaries of the site is provided at Appendix A. The site has been promoted throughout the plan process for retirement housing.
1.3 As a consultation response to a Regulation 19 iteration of the Local Plan, the focus of this representation is the soundness and legal compliance of the PSLP.
1.4 We raised a number of concerns with the proposed approach being taken by the Local Plan, especially in relation to the provision of suitable and sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of the Borough's aging population, and put forward options to address this in our response to consultation on the Regulation 18 iteration of the Local Plan. However, these points do not appear to have been considered or addressed.
1.5 We do not consider that the PSLP as currently drafted can constitute a sound Local Plan in respect of its approach to specialist accommodation as per the requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and paragraph 35 in particular. However, we are of the view that defects in the PSLP can be cured, as explained within this representation.
meeting this need, the NPPF (paragraph 50) requires Local Planning Authorities to plan for a mix of housing having regard to the needs of different groups, including older people. It goes on to state that Local Planning Authorities should identify the range of housing required in particular locations.
2.3 The importance of this is further emphasised within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which describes the need to provide housing for older people as critical given the increase in this part of the population.
2.4 Within the Borough itself there is an ageing population, with the ONS projecting those aged over 65 as a percentage of the total population will increase from 20% in 2014 to 26% in 2037. This results in an increase of the population aged over 65 from 15,000 in 2014 to 23,000 by 2037. The ageing population is recognised within the PSLP at paragraph 6.6.
2.5 The NPPF and PPG are clear that Local Planning Authorities should seek to meet the needs of all residents, including older people. They further recognise that older people range from active people approaching retirement to the very frail elderly, having different housing needs.
2.6 Traditionally it has been sought to meet older persons housing needs through the provision of extra care housing falling within the C2 Use Class. As set out within the NPPF and PPG, older people require a range of housing and not just extra care, with providers of different products now active within the housing market to meet this need.
2.7 This is reflected within research by McCarthy & Stone, Retirement Housing: Integral to an ageing Britain (2017), which found that of those aged over 65, approximately 5.7 million people in the UK were potentially looking to downsize. This figure is projected to rise to 11 million by 2036.
Land at Hillcrest Nurseries, Herongate and Ingrave
3
2.8 In relation to the Borough specifically, Clearbrook Group commissioned their own research in respect of the need for retirement housing, as part of a previous planning application1. This confirmed such a need exists within the Borough and that there was a particular need for private sector retirement housing. The planning application was refused and appealed. The appeal2 was dismissed, but the Inspector noted (paragraph 31) that a significant amount of evidence had been provided to demonstrate a need for accommodation of the type proposed; that the need was not disputed by the Council; and concluded that the proposed development would clearly make a contribution to meeting local need.
2.9 The research undertaken by Clearbrook also identified that a high percentage of the population within Ingrave and Herongate are over 65 years of age, demonstrating a clear need within the local area.
2.10 There is a clear need for a range of housing suitable for older people within the Borough, which should be addressed through the Local Plan in accordance with the NPPF and PPG.
2.11 However, we consider that the current approach within the PSLP does not meet the range of housing needs and in this respect is not positively prepared or consistent with national policy.
2.12 The PSLP's current proposed approach is through Policies HP01 and HP04.
2.13 Policy HP01 requires each dwelling to be constructed to meet M4(2) accessible and adaptable standards, with 5% of dwellings to be M4(3) on schemes of 60 or more. Where other Councils have sought to require all dwellings to meet M4(2) there have been multiple objections due to viability implications, with the requirement generally being significantly reduced. We are therefore concerned that the actual amount of housing meeting accessible and adaptable, and wheelchair user standards will be significantly below this level.
2.14 Policy HP01 also sets out the Council will seek the provision of specialist accommodation on strategic residential schemes of 500 dwellings or more, with paragraph 6.13 stating this will ensure there will be sufficient housing to accommodate identified local need as set out in Policy HP04 Specialist Accommodation.
2.15 Given the high level of Green Belt within the Borough, any schemes over the 500 unit threshold will be the strategic allocations only. The PSLP sets out that the strategic allocations of West Horndon Industrial Estate, North of Shenfield and Ford Headquarters and Council Depot should all include the delivery of 60-bed care homes within Use Class C2, being a total of 180 beds of C2 accommodation.
2.16 Further specialist accommodation is also to be provided on Dunton Hills Garden Village, with Policy R01 seeking specialist accommodation in accordance with Policy HP04. No indication of the size or type of this specialist accommodation is given so it is unclear whether this will be another care home or a different form of accommodation.
2.17 With all of the specific provision within the PSLP being on large strategic sites, there will inevitably be a longer lead-in time for development to commence. There is also the challenge that major house builders do not deliver care homes themselves so will need to get an alternative provider involved, likely resulting in further delay to the care homes being delivered.
2.18 There is not only the risk that no care homes will be delivered until the medium/long term part of the plan period but also that through this approach a range of housing for older people will not be provided, contrary to paragraph 50 of the NPPF.
2.19 Policy HP04 states the Council will 'encourage and support proposals which contribute to the delivery of Specialist Accommodation' subject to various criteria being met.
2.20 However, it is not clear how much specialist accommodation, where, or how, this will be delivered. Paragraph 6.25 states the Council will 'work with Essex County Council to secure provision of suitable sites' for independent living schemes, strongly suggesting that the Council themselves are not clear where independent living or specialist housing will be located.
2.21 Furthermore, as part of the PSLP a review of site capacity has been undertaken which identified that development needs in general cannot be met within the existing developed areas, with the Council considering exceptional circumstances exist to amend Green Belt boundaries in accordance with paragraph 136 of the NPPF.
2.22 With Policy HP04 still requiring proposals to comply with Green Belt policies, we question where additional sites can be identified within the Borough on non-Green Belt land. The Council have already identified that development needs cannot be met without amending Green Belt boundaries so it therefore logically follows that to provide additional specialist accommodation, Green Belt boundaries should similarly be reviewed. Under the current PSLP approach, it is difficult to see where a new site within the existing built up area will come forward for specialist accommodation, casting further doubts on the effectiveness of Policy HP04.
2.23 Without amendments, the PSLP is considered unsound in relation to its approach to meeting the accommodation needs of an ageing population. The approach is neither positively prepared, consistent with national policy, nor effective.
2.24 In order to make the approach to the needs of the ageing population sound, we suggest the Council should allocate deliverable sites to meet the diverse needs of older people. Such sites should include those that can come forward in the early part of the plan period to meet immediate needs, and should be distributed across the Borough to meet local needs and allow people to remain within their existing communities if they wish.
3.0 Land at Hillcrest Nurseries, Herongate and Ingrave
3.1 As set out above, the Council should allocate sites specifically to provide housing for older people within the Local Plan. The site promoted by Clearbrook Group is suitable for such development and can help meet local needs within Ingrave, allowing elderly residents to remain within the existing community.
3.2 The site (reference 146 in the Council's plan-making process) is located outside of, but immediately adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Ingrave in the current Development Plan.
3.3 The site assessed by the Council measures 0.74 ha and forms the northern part of Hillcrest Nurseries, which in total measures approximately 1.6 ha. It is rectangular in shape and was previously a paddock with the main stables sited on the northern edge of the nursery.
3.4 The site contains a number of trees (generally in poor condition, as identified through previous planning application work) and is characterised by scrub. In terms of topography, the site is relatively flat.
3.5 The site is on land which is currently allocated as Green Belt in the now out-of-date Development Plan (the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (2005), which will be superseded by the new Local Plan currently being prepared. Land to the north, south, and east is outside of the Green Belt and forms part of the designated residential area.
3.6 Ingrave Johnstone Church of England Primary School is located immediately to the north of the site, beyond which are existing residential properties. The existing school access is via a narrow track adjoining the northern boundary of the site, which is understood to date back from the early 20th century, when the village school was considerably smaller.
3.7 To the west of the of the site is the existing village playing field, used by the residents of Herongate, Ingrave and the neighbouring school; to the south-west residential dwellings. To the east is Brentwood Road - the main road running through the village on a north-south axis. On the eastern side of this are, again, residential dwellings. The locality is very much residential in character.
3.8 The site is in a sustainable location, with regular bus routes available on the adjacent A128 Brentwood Road. Numerous services and facilities are also easily accessible from the site, including a convenience store, Marks and Spencer simply food, two public houses/restaurants, grocers, dentist and a church. Such facilities are within easy walking distance of the site.
3.9 The location of the site and its proximity to a range of services and facilities demonstrate its suitability for retirement housing, with elderly people highly likely to walk to such facilities or utilise public transport. We are not aware of any other site in the locality which is as well placed for such development.
3.10 Furthermore, as set out, residents of a retirement development have different travel patterns to those of a traditional market housing development. Elderly residents are significantly less likely to be travelling in peak hours and can provide footfall throughout the day to local services and facilities. The retirement housing proposed will not therefore add to traffic congestion and can help maintain the vitality of the area.
3.11 The Council assessed the site through the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) (October 2018), finding it to be suitable, available and achievable and able to deliver housing within the first five years of the plan period. This further highlights the deliverability of the site.
3.12 The site has a planning history which includes an application for 27 retirement flats with communal facilities; separate staff, visitor and coach parking for Ingrave Johnstone Church of England Primary School and an extended school playground (application reference 14/01024/FUL). The application was refused and was subject to an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed.
3.13 The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal can be summarised as follows:
* Inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would harm openness;
* Harm to the character and appearance of the area;
* Failure to provide sufficient affordable housing.
3.14 In respect of the concerns relating to harm to the character of area and lack of affordable housing, these are functions of the details of the specific proposal that was subject to appeal; as opposed to potential fundamental concerns as to whether the site could be suitable for development.
3.15 In respect of the development being inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it is very much relevant to note that whilst this is of course very much relevant to a Section 78 appeal; in respect of plan-making, and given that the Council acknowledges the new Local Plan must release some Green Belt in order to meet development needs, it is necessary to consider the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.
3.16 As per the NPPF, the Green Belt serves five purposes:
* to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
* to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
* to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
* to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
* to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
3.17 A revised Green Belt assessment has been published as part of the consultation, which assesses the site under reference 146. Overall this found the site to have a moderate/high contribution towards the Green Belt purposes.
3.18 This is in part due to the consideration that development would reinforce and lead to coalescence of Ingrave and Herongate. It should be recognised that there is existing residential and retail development along the eastern side of Brentwood Road which runs south, past the southern boundary of the site being promoted for allocation and closer to Herongate than the proposed allocation. A gap between Ingrave and Herongate would be maintained by the village playing field, the southern part of the nursery site, and Ingrave Common (cricket pitch). It is not considered that the development of the site proposed would materially alter the separation between the two settlements insofar as it currently exists.
3.19 Looking at this specific site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt, its relationship with the existing residential envelope is considered particularly relevant. To the north is existing residential development and a school. To the east, south and south-west is also existing residential development. As such, the site is surrounded by existing residential development. The site does not represent open countryside, and as such its development would not entail encroachment into the countryside. Furthermore, given the site's relationship with existing development, it development could not constitute unrestricted sprawl. The site is very much contained by surrounding features.
3.20 In terms of impact on historic setting of a settlement, the scale of the proposed development is considered to result in nominal impact in this sense, as it would appear a proportionate and unobtrusive addition to the existing settlement. Herongate Conservation Area is the nearest Conservation Area, but is located some distance to the south of the site and is very much functionally separate from it. This is confirmed in the Green Belt assessment, which sets out the site has limited relationship with a Historic Town (the lowest score possible).
3.21 Overall we consider that the scoring given to the site within the Green Belt assessment is overly high, with the site being in an area characterised by residential development and not representing countryside.
3.22 The site has further been considered by the Council within the Sustainability Appraisal. We have some concerns with the scores given to the site, with the site assessed as performing poorly in relation to Conservation Areas. However, the site is functionally separated from the Herongate Conservation Area and development of the site can provide landscaping benefits compared to existing poor quality trees.
3.23 Furthermore, the site is assessed as performing well in relation to criteria 8 (Primary school) by virtue of it being located less than 800m from the nearest primary school. However, this overlooks the site's potential to contribute to enhancements to the school, as described elsewhere in this representation. Essex County Council's Commissioning School Places in Essex 2017-2022 projects the School will be close to capacity by 2021/22, even before additional growth is accounted for, and the potential for land to be made available (which could include improvements to access) should be considered a significant positive.
3.24 The SA report considers all sites as providing general housing and it does not appear that the Council have considered the distinct benefit of the provision of housing for older people at any stage of the site assessment and selection process. The Council should have considered the specific use of the site alongside the outcomes of the HELAA, Green Belt Assessment and SA, with the provision of housing for older people and other benefits outweighing any harm to the Green Belt and justifying the release of the site from the Green Belt.
3.25 As identified through the previous application and appeal, the site can provide apartments for the elderly with communal facilities. Other benefits could also be provided that are unique to the site, including staff, visitor and coach parking for the nearby Ingrave Johnstone Church of England Primary School and an extended school playground.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 Whilst the PSLP recognises the growing ageing population within the Borough, it fails to provide suitable policies to facilitate the delivery of a range of suitable housing to meet this need.
4.2 The current approach within the PSLP is to provide a total of 180-beds within care homes on strategic sites plus an unquantified amount of specialist accommodation within Dunton Hills Garden Village. With long lead-in times for strategic sites, this will not provide housing for older people within the short term and does not provide a range of housing to meet differing needs.
4.3 The other approach within the PSLP is through Policy HP04, which supports the provision of specialist accommodation but does not specifically set out sites to provide such housing. Furthermore, with the Council having already identified suitable sites for housing outside the Green Belt within the Local Plan and subsequently confirmed that land needs to be removed from the Green Belt to meet general housing need, we question where additional sites will be identified that are not within the Green Belt. With sites still needing to comply with Green Belt policies, we consider it very unlikely that sites will come forward that will not conflict with Green Belt policies.
4.4 For the reasons set out it is considered that Policy HP04 is not currently effective or consistent with national policy as it will not allow the housing needs of older people to be met over the plan period. Policy HP04 and the approach of the Local Plan to meeting the housing needs of older people is therefore unsound under paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
4.5 Land at Hillcrest Nurseries, as promoted by Clearbrook Group, can deliver retirement housing to meet the needs of older people and allow them to stay in their local community in housing suited to their needs, with the further benefit of releasing typically family housing back into the housing market.
4.6 Development of the site is suitable, available and achievable, as confirmed through the Council's HELAA. It could also deliver other benefits including the provision of a car park and additional playground for the nearby school.
4.7 Overall we consider the allocation of the site and its release from the Green Belt is justified and would assist the soundness of Policy HP04 and the Local Plan in its strategy for meeting the range of housing needs for older people.
4.8 As we have raised concerns with the soundness of parts of the PSLP and suggested modifications, we welcome the opportunity to explore these further with the Council and Inspector at the Examination Hearing sessions.

Amend and clarify policy HP01B

This Response should be read in conjunction with the Response Form and Cover
Letter as also submitted.
The Council's Local Plan Submission Development Plan Document identifies a housing need for some 7,752 dwellings over the Plan period 2016-2033 and is confirmed by the Housing Delivery Test from the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. See also Policy SP02A referred to below, where there will be a lower annual rate of delivery expected to 2023 than for the later period of 2023-2033: ("Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033).
The identification and allocation of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and the land adjoining at 346 Ongar Road is a good example of positive and proactive planmaking reflecting the status and priority of the land as previously developed land where it can be sustainably redeveloped.
The exceptional circumstances that direct that the Green Belt Boundary should be amended have been recognised by the Local Planning Authority and are supported.
1 The Sow N Grow Nursery with dwellings as shown in Appendix 1 has been promoted for some years now as a potential highly sustainable development site for release from the Green Belt to meet local housing needs. It also tidies up a site of poor visual quality that makes no contribution to, or has any function or purpose that contributes to the Green Belt. Part of the land adjoining, separated by a trackway from the Sow N Grow Nursery has been included in the Site Allocation, described as Sow N Grow Nursery, but forms part of the garden of 346 Ongar Road and is owned by Mrs Dunbar, also as shown in the title plan in Appendix 1.
2 Progress in pre-application advice discussions has been made, first by Bellway Homes and then by the Armiger family for the Sow N Grow site. However preapplication discussions have been delayed and put in abeyance by changes to National Planning Practice Guidance issued by Sir Eric Pickles, when housing need was not to be considered a very special circumstance for green belt development. The release of green belt land for development should be way of development plan as the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 now makes clear as policy, in para. 136: "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans".
3 The Armiger family have deferred further pre-application discussions pending the adoption of this Local Plan as certainty is required before further progress and investment can be made in the site. Their intentions to redevelop remain firm as confirmed by their continuing investment in the pre-application process, in recent site acquisition, and in their management of the commercial and residential tenant occupiers.
4 Mrs Dunbar is also firm in her intention to seek to develop her part of the allocated site once the Local Plan is adopted. Although not part of the pre-application discussions to date, upon adoption advice will be sought from the local planning authority on how best to develop her part of the site.
5 Accordingly both the Armiger family's and Mrs Dunbar's land comprising the allocated site remain available and capable for early development in the Plan period. It would be suitable for small builder construction, with the Sow N Grow part being less than a hectare (0.93 hectares), and so readily accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 by which this emerging Local Plan will be assessed as a post January 2019 Plan. See in particular para. 214, Annex 1 to the NPPF:
"The policies in the previous Framework published in March 2012 will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those plans were submitted on or before 24 January 2019. Where such plans are withdrawn or otherwise do not proceed to become part of the development plan, the policies contained in this Framework will apply to any subsequent plan produced for the area concerned.
6 Furthermore Mrs Dunbar's land to the north of the trackway within the Allocated Site as shown on page 234 of the Local Plan is garden land beyond and outside of any defined urban area, and also falls to be previously developed land. (See Annex 2. Glossary to the NPPF 2018). Mrs Dunbar also wishes to see the land she owns developed and is also willing to bring her land forward for development quickly after the adoption of the Local Plan, and within the first five years.
7 This Submission Copy Local Plan takes full account of the NPPF 2018 - see para. 1.24 of the Local Plan.
8 Para. 2.16 also confirms brownfield sites in the Green Belt will be brought forward where appropriate. This has been achieved with regard to the Sow N Grow site and land adjoining, despite 89% of the District being Green Belt. (See para.2.54 of the Local Plan).
9 The Plan also has developed a strategy for development that provides for a mixture of new and extended settlements which is supported in the Growth Corridor, but also recognises the limited potential of other settlements as demonstrated with the more modest and appropriate allocations for Pilgrims Hatch. This is supported.
10 The Settlement Hierarchy has been well defined and Pilgrim's Hatch is properly considered as an Urban Neighbourhood as part of Settlement Category 1. This is supported. (Para.s 2.10 and 2.11).
11 The calculations and housing supply requirements as calculated in para.s 4.16 and 4.17 are supported as a reasonable minimum target for the District over the Plan period as the National Housing Delivery Test applies and is confirmed as met. The need for a 20% uplift to accord with the NPPF 2018 to achieve 456 dwellings per annum is supported.
12 Para. 4.21 confirms a pragmatic approch for housing delivery during the first five years of the Plan, seeking to achieve 310 dwellings per annum to 2023 and some 41 units per annum windfall. (See para. 4.17 of the Plan).
13 These appear potentially conservative assessments when the Sow N Grow site and adjoining land is considered as an example. Policy R07 seeks to achieve only 38 dwellings on the site of Sow N Grow Nursery and dwellings and the part of 346 Ongar Road. This will be referred to further below but more can be achieved close to perhaps 50 dwellings.
14 If this site is an example, there could be more potential dwellings achievable from use of smaller sites, sooner, during the Plan period, and this target could be therefore be exceeded.
15 Nevertheless the approach is supported.
16 It is noted Policies BE18 and BE20 seeks to protect and improve green and blue infrastructure and therefore the existing allotments and the trackway giving barrow access and egress will need to be protected to the rear of the Sow N Grown allocated site.
17 This is also in separate land ownership so this needs to be respected in any development policy for the allocation. (See ownership plans in Appendix 1 and further comments below).
18 It is not considered that this requires an amendment or criterion to be added to Policy R07 as it can be dealt with as a matter of detailed planning control in the preapplication /
application process under emerging policies BE18 and BE20.
19 It is understood that Policy BE21 will only apply to garden land not forming part of an allocated site for development.
20 If it is considered by the Examiner that as drafted BE21 is not clear, then it is requested that there is a clarification by way of an explanatory paragraph to exclude the application of Policy BE21 to parts of sites in garden land use, such as identified in Policy R07.
21 Likewise para. 5.174 refers to the NPPF 2018 and the exclusion of gardens from the definition of previously developed land. However Annex 2 Glossary to the NPPF 2018 states with regard to previously developed land, land that is excluded includes:
"land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks .. "
22 As land in site R07 includes residential garden land to the Bungalow and dwelling at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also to 346 Ongar Road, which is currently outside the development/settlement boundary and in the countryside/green belt, it will be previously developed land. When it is brought into the settlement boundary and out of the green belt upon adoption there may be a need to clarify the application of this explanatory paragraph which forms part of the emerging Local Plan; as referred to above.
23 If the Examiner agrees, there should be a further clarification to para. 5.174 to exclude gardens outside built up areas to accord with the definition in the NPPF 2018, and to provide certainty where part of allocated development sites which become part of built up areas.
24 Policy HP01 is noted. However, HP01B states: "Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site".
25 Where an allocated site is in two or more separate ownerships and separated by a physical barrier or legal ownership, this criterion may be difficult to apply and could delay or halt development. For example, the land at Sow N Grow Nursery is separated from the land at 346 Ongar Road by the access-way to the allotments and the access-way is understood to be unregistered land owned by a third party, a foreign national of unknown abode. There may not be the ability to co-operate and undertake development for the entire allocated site as a single entity as this Policy, perhaps, envisages.
26 If the Examiner agrees, it would be preferable that there should be a further clarification or explanatory paragraph to Poli cy HP01B to allow for smaller sites in separate ownerships, say under 1 hectare) to be excluded from the Policy. This would facilitate quicker delivery of such sites. It would also better accord with the NPPF 2018. (See para. 68 of the NPPF 2018, noting the Sow N Grow part of the site is less than 1 hectare (about 0.93 hectares) - in particular also para. 68a and the requirement for 10% delivery of sites of less than 1 hectare, with the further smaller separate parcel at 346 Ongar Road).
27 Policy HP03B requires a residential density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare and this is supported. On the Sow N Grow and adjoining land identified in Policy R07 the total area exceeds one hectare but only 34 dwellings are suggested for the site. This is considered not to fulfil the site potential for the further reasons given above and below. See also the proposed layout plan submitted for pre-application advice in Appendix 2. (Consent has been given by the Armiger family for Mrs Dunbar to refer to this and the pre-application discussions).
28 If the Examiner agrees, then the words "at least" should be inserted into the potential site capacity of the Sow N Grow site to better reflect Policy HP03B. 29 Para. 7.20 confirms there will be 47.39 hectares of new employment land allocated in the District, and this will exceed requirements. There is therefore no need to retain poorly arranged and constructed buildings providing poor quality employment land uses, especially on allocated development site for badly needed housing. (Such as at the Sow N Grow Nursery site part of the allocated site).
30 The employment land policies and land allocations are supported as sound.
31 The Plan, in para. 8.85 confirms the main purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF 2018:
"i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ii. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land".
32 The land at Sow N Grow Nursery, the dwellings therein and the land adjoining included in the allocated site in Policy R07 is to be taken out of the Green Belt. It fails to meet or contribute to the relevant main purposes of the Green Belt (i), (ii), (iii) and will if released contribute to regeneration of this unattractive and poorly arranged site. The release from the Green Belt and Green Belt policy is supported.
33 Policy NE12 is also supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.
34 Policy NE13A and NE13B are supported as it makes clear that allocated sites are being taken out of the Green Belt, providing that the benefits sought as set out in para. 8.114 are realistic and do not harm viability of development.
35 Policy R01, Dunton Hills Garden Village is not in principle objected to provided that no further development in dwelling numbers are allocated to this very large site. At 2,700 dwellings these are a substantial number and part of meeting local housing need and these will take time to build and supply.
36 It is all the more important that smaller, readily developable sites, such as that at Sow N Grow Nursery and land at 346 Ongar Road can be brought forward quickly and readily and without undue constraints to accord with para. 68 of the NPPF as referred to above.
37 Other larger housing site allocations are likewise not objected to, provided that there is no significant additional dwelling allocations added to them, either by way of additional land, or by way of significant additional density and dwelling provision, to the larger allocated sites.
38 Policy R07 is therefore fully supported, although the potential number of dwellings achievable on the site as defined in the Policy on Plan on page 342 appears to be an underestimate.
39 It should also be noted that, as above, the site is best considered as being in two parts. The first being the Bungalow at the Nursery, and its garden; the further dwelling and garden; the remaining garden centre/plant sales buildings, together with the various business uses on the land comprising all of the Sow N Grow Nursery land up the allotments trackway all being one part. (This is shown as the ownership plan in Appendix 1 as submitted for pre-application advice. The site is now owned by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger. The second part is the garden land at 346 Ongar Road edged red on the title plan is owned by Mrs Heather Dunbar.
40 The trackway to the allotments shown brown on the title extract plan for the site on Ongar Road is, I am advised, thought to be owned by an unknown person resident in Morroco, in an unknown location. The land is also thought not to be registered.
41 There is a right for access from the public highway along the trackway by wheelbarrow to the allotments. It is unlikely that this land can be readily acquired by either adjoining party or any third party developer, and so compulsory purchase powers may be required to complete and use this land. This would give rise to delay and expense in developing out all of the defined allocated site shown on page 342.
42 Accordingly, I am instructed by all the Armiger family owners of the land at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also by Mrs Dunbar of 346 Ongar Road, to bring this to the attention of the Local Planning Authority and the Local Plan Examiner. Relevant ownership plans are in Appendix 1.
43 This need not have any impact on developing the defined and allocated site, save in detail, by retaining the access-way to and from the allotments. It should be noted that the land is in two separate ownerships and best developed separately to meet the Local Plan objectives and housing delivery as small sites below 1 hectare as referred to above.
44 Both landowners have instructed me to submit a Response to the Submission Copy Local Plan. Both landowners are willing and able to release land for development once the Plan is adopted. In the case of the Sow Grow Nursery site the Armiger family may develop the land themselves once certainty is provided.
45 It is likely that the Sow N Grow site could be redeveloped to provide up to 42 dwellings as demonstrated by the pre-application advice drawing submitted to the local planning authority and reproduced as Appendix 2.
46 Although no detailed assessments have been undertaken the land north of the trackway could be developed by way of a private drive access from the Ongar Road to deliver some 4-5 dwellings or more, subject to feasibility appraisals and preapplication advice.
47 This suggests some 47 dwellings in total could be provided on the allocated site.
48 Accordingly if the Local Plan Examiner agrees, it would be appropriate to amend Policy R07 to state as shown in bold:"provision for around at least 38 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing"
49 If agreed then para. 9.117 needs to be amended to match.
50 Para. 9.118 would not appear to require amendment as a further access can be provided to that part of the site at 346 Ongar Road separately; possibly by way of a private drive for a smaller development.
51 There is no objection to the provision of landscaping buffers proportionate to the park and garden as well as allotment amenity referred to in the Policy. This can be a matter of detailed design.
52 The location of the allocated site just within a Critical Drainage Area is noted as referred to in Policy R07. Initial inquiries of Essex County Council suggest that concerns arising will be minor and likely to be readily resolved by on site design details and if necessary on site mitigation and attenuation measures. These can be dealt with through the development control process.
53 With the above minor amendments, and the noting of the ownership position, then Policy R07 and Allocated Site Plan and other references to the site in the Local Plan Submission Copy can be fully supported. 54 Without such amendments the Policy is still supported but it is considered, given the land ownership position, that this would better clarify the Policy, and therefore the implementation of the Plan.
55 With all the above amendments the Submission Copy Local Plan can then be fully supported.
56 The Plan will then have been fully positively prepared and be positive and proactive as required in the NPPF.
57 There has been an effective review of brownfield sites and previously developed land. The evidence base confirms this. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site, as now defined, confirms this, as well as its inclusion in the Brownfield Register.
58 There has been an effective review of Green Belt Boundaries by the Local Planning Authority as required by the NPPF 2018 when preparing a development plan. The exceptional circumstances required for development plan boundary changes have been sufficiently been taken into account and amendments made. Locations of previously developed land in the Green Belt have been properly assessed in appropriate detail. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and adjoining land as shown on Plan on page 234, as now defined, confirms this.
59 The sequential approach adopted has identified sustainable development opportunities. This indicates a sound plan has been prepared.
60 The methodology, review and approach and the policies to be adopted broadly reflect the adopted settlement hierarchy and the sustainable development opportunities, and provided there are no major changes in the allocations and numbers to the sites allocated, this can be supported even if it is not, by others, considered ideal.
61 In the High Court decision, Calverton Parish Council, Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council v Peveril Securities Limited and UKPP (Totton) Limited, [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin), it was confirmed there is no single way specified to undertake a green belt review in the NPPF. It would be a matter of planning judgment.
62 Para. 52 of the Judgement also states an ideal approach is not necessary to be legally sufficient for an Inspector at an Examination in Public, and by extension any planning decision maker:
"Although it seems clear that what I have called an ideal approach has not been explicitly followed on a systematic basis in the instant case, it is a counsel of perfection. Planning Inspectors do not write court judgments. The issue which properly arises is whether the Inspector's more discursive and open-textured approach, which was clearly carried through into the ACS, was legally sufficient.
63 Accordingly the Local Plan is supported. It need not be ideal in all respects. However the selection of the Sow N Grow site is evidence of a sound Plan with regard to housing site allocation and delivery, and green belt boundary changes. This site allocation is supported.
64 It is based on good evidence and the Housing Delivery Test required by the NPPF. It is therefore positively prepared and justified. It is consistent with the NPPF.
65 It should also be effective over the Plan period. The Housing Trajectory is supported. (Appendix 1. Page 309 of the Plan).
66 The Plan appears legally compliant and there appears to have been adequate cooperation with adjoining local planning authorities.
67 Accordingly the Plan is supported. Some minor amendments are suggested above but these are not considered essential. It is left for the Local Plan Examiner to consider and decide.
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF 13 March 2019

Amend and clarify policy HP01B

SOW N GROW NURSERY AND ADJOINING SITES MAKING UP SITE R07.
BRENTWOOD DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN SUBMISSION DOCUMENT.
CONSULTATION RESPONSE FOR MR DEKEK ARMIGER Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger, THE BUNGALOW, SOW N
GROW NURSERY, PILGRIMS HATCH, BRENTWOOD, ESSEX CM15 9JH.

Was instructed as Agent by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger as separate, but identical Responses, as being the joint owners of the larger part of the land comprising the Sow N Grow Nursery Allocated Site and Bungalow and dwelling, as defined in Policy R07, and as shown in part, on the plan on page 324. Please find enclosed a completed Response Form on behalf of Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger together with a continuation and supporting Statement of Response to the Local Plan which with this letter comprise the Response to the Consultation. For copies of original submission see attachments on planning portal.

The Statement sets out the background to the inclusion of the site in the Submission Local Plan, and includes reference to pre-application advice taken with regard to the land owned by the Armiger family, their purchase of further freehold land under the former telecoms mast operated by O2, and formerly owned by Pinnacle Towers, to complete their assembly of their site.
There is also a reference to the potential development of the land they own within the Allocated Site (R07) by way of a scheme showing 42 dwellings as previously submitted to and commented upon by the Local Planning Authority in the pre-application advice process. (See Appendix 2 to the Response Statement submitted with this letter).
The Response Statements submitted confirm that the whole of the land south of the trackway to the allotments is owned by Armiger family members. It is considered to be previously developed land. Itis currently within the defined green belt. There are exceptional circumstances for a boundary change. There are short term tenants occupying the commercial buildings and the dwellings in their ownership are occupied by the Armiger family or by residential short term tenants. The Armiger owned part of the site is therefore readily capable of being made available for development for residential use within the first five years of the development plan period.
Likewise it is confirmed that Mrs Dunbar is willing to bring that part of the site defined in the Plan and on page 324 for development in the early part of the Plan period within her ownership, separately, and it is likely that this area could accommodate up to five dwellings with a private access driveway.
As this is a smaller site with potential for build out by smaller local builders in the early part of the Plan period, this Allocated Site will provide housing delivery in the early part of the Housing Trajectory pending larger site allocations coming forward in due course, but where infrastructure investments are required. See part of Policy SP02A which states:
"Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033".
The Response Statement further confirms the Armiger family land is part of the Allocated Site and lies to the south of, and limited by, a trackway running approximately east/west, giving allotment holders access to the back-land allotments. This trackway is not in the ownership of the Armiger Family, nor is it in the ownership of Mrs Heath Dunbar the owner of the land north of the trackway. The site ownership plans in Appendix 1 to the submitted Statement confirm. The land allocated in the Sow N Grow Site owned by Mrs Dunbar comprises part of the garden to Rose Cottage, 346 Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch. The Statement to the Response confirms this and a title plan is submitted to confirm the extent of ownership. The Local Planning Authority has taken some considerable time to prepare and produce this Submission Copy Plan, and following the change in National Planning Practice Guidance by Sir Eric Pickles, pre-application advice matters have been left in abeyance by the Armiger Family for some years. The land owned by Mrs Dunbar has not been included in the pre-application advice application and can be seen to be separated from it by the trackway.
Nevertheless it is previously developed land as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework Glossary (Annex 2), and it is in this highly sustainable location adjoining an urban neighbourhood and can provide dwellings for the same sound reasons that the larger site shown in the Plan on page 324 was selected and allocated. It too can be brought forward by a willing owner. This is an important and material consideration for the site and the Plan so it can be adopted to deliver housing in the Brentwood area as early as possible and the allocation of this site can achieve this.
The Statement for Mrs Dunbar sets out why the Local Plan is considered to fully meet the requirements and criteria for the adoption of a Local Plan for the Examination in Public. The Statement also refers to case law for Local Plans, particularly with regard to green belt boundaries. Plans do not have to be ideal or perfect in all respects. Some minor suggestions are submitted for the Examiner's discretion.
The earliest adoption of the Plan and the whole of the Allocated Site is supported and would be welcomed. It is supported by all the Armiger family and also by Mrs Dunbar, as the Sow N Grow Site R07 without amendment. The Plan is considered to be the result of up to date pro-active plan making, based upon firm evidence and analysis, accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (and the Housing Delivery Test) and legally compliant. It is therefore sound.
Furthermore the Local Plan is considered to now have a comprehensive evidence base to fully and properly review all available brownfield/ previously developed land for future development, both within, and without the defined settlement boundaries of the District and in the Green Belt. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery and land adjoining as shown in the Plan on page 324 is a clear example of these matters being achieved, with a readily developable and sustainable site being allocated in response to the Call for Sites, the Brownfield Register and the Consultations. It is understood that at the Council Meeting in November 2018 the Councillor objecting to the inclusion of the Allocated Site withdrew objections.
The Plan is therefore supported for the earliest adoption and it is trusted that this Letter, the Response Form, and Supporting Statement submitted for Mrs Dunbar are brought to the Examiner's attention. Mrs Dunbar would like to attend the Examination in Public in due course. I should be pleased to discuss matters arising from this Letter, Response Form, and Statement, with the Local Planning Authority should it wish to do so.
Yours sincerely
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF Copy: Mrs Heather Dunbar

I consider that the Local Plan is both sound and legally compliant, having regard to the delivery of assessed housing need in accordance with the Housing Delivery Test as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, and in the Local Plan, over the Plan period. As also set out in the submitted Statement and the Cover Letter. It is important that the Local Plan delivers the housing needed over the Plan period in a sustainable manner by the selection of appropriate sites for development well served by public transport, whether by way of large such as at Dunton Hill, but also and just as importantly, by way of smaller sites, especially within and next to urban neighbourhoods, and comprising previously developed land. Pilgrims Hatch has been appropriately defined as such a neighbourhood in the Settlement Hierarchy. This is supported. Where there is previously developed land, this should be allocated for development as a priority, even if within the green belt; especially where located next to urban neighbourhoods where local services and public transport are available. The Sow N Grow site is just such a site and accordingly, the green belt boundaries can be amended accordingly, reflecting the exceptional circumstances prevailing. The approach is sound and effective, and this is also supported. I therefore strongly support the Plan, the allocation of this site, and Policy R07.

 
This Response should be read in conjunction with the Response Form and Cover Letter as also submitted.
The Council's Local Plan Submission Development Plan Document identifies a housing need for some 7,752 dwellings over the Plan period 2016-2033 and is confirmed by the Housing Delivery Test from the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. See also Policy SP02A referred to below, where there will be a lower annual rate of delivery expected to 2023 than for the later period of 2023-2033: ("Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033).
The identification and allocation of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and the land adjoining at 346 Ongar Road is a good example of positive and proactive planmaking reflecting the status and priority of the land as previously developed land where it can be sustainably redeveloped.
The exceptional circumstances that direct that the Green Belt Boundary should be amended have been recognised by the Local Planning Authority and are supported.
1 The Sow N Grow Nursery with dwellings as shown in Appendix 1 has been promoted for some years now as a potential highly sustainable development site for release from the Green Belt to meet local housing needs. It also tidies up a site of poor visual quality that makes no contribution to, or has any function or purpose that contributes to the Green Belt. Part of the land adjoining, separated by a trackway from the Sow N Grow Nursery has been included in the Site Allocation, described as Sow N Grow Nursery, but forms part of the garden of 346 Ongar Road and is owned by Mrs Dunbar, also as shown in the title plan in Appendix 1.
2 Progress in pre-application advice discussions has been made, first by Bellway Homes and then by the Armiger family for the Sow N Grow site. However preapplication discussions have been delayed and put in abeyance by changes to National Planning Practice Guidance issued by Sir Eric Pickles, when housing need was not to be considered a very special circumstance for green belt development. The release of green belt land for development should be way of development plan as the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 now makes clear as policy, in para. 136: "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans".
3 The Armiger family have deferred further pre-application discussions pending the adoption of this Local Plan as certainty is required before further progress and investment can be made in the site. Their intentions to redevelop remain firm as confirmed by their continuing investment in the pre-application process, in recent site acquisition, and in their management of the commercial and residential tenant occupiers.
4 Mrs Dunbar is also firm in her intention to seek to develop her part of the allocated site once the Local Plan is adopted. Although not part of the pre-application discussions to date, upon adoption advice will be sought from the local planning authority on how best to develop her part of the site.
5 Accordingly both the Armiger family's and Mrs Dunbar's land comprising the allocated site remain available and capable for early development in the Plan period. It would be suitable for small builder construction, with the Sow N Grow part being less than a hectare (0.93 hectares), and so readily accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 by which this emerging Local Plan will be assessed as a post January 2019 Plan. See in particular para. 214, Annex 1 to the NPPF:
"The policies in the previous Framework published in March 2012 will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those plans were submitted on or before 24 January 2019. Where such plans are withdrawn or otherwise do not proceed to become part of the development plan, the policies contained in this Framework will apply to any subsequent plan produced for the area concerned.
6 Furthermore Mrs Dunbar's land to the north of the trackway within the Allocated Site as shown on page 234 of the Local Plan is garden land beyond and outside of any defined urban area, and also falls to be previously developed land. (See Annex 2. Glossary to the NPPF 2018). Mrs Dunbar also wishes to see the land she owns developed and is also willing to bring her land forward for development quickly after the adoption of the Local Plan, and within the first five years.
7 This Submission Copy Local Plan takes full account of the NPPF 2018 - see para. 1.24 of the Local Plan.
8 Para. 2.16 also confirms brownfield sites in the Green Belt will be brought forward where appropriate. This has been achieved with regard to the Sow N Grow site and land adjoining, despite 89% of the District being Green Belt. (See para.2.54 of the Local Plan).
9 The Plan also has developed a strategy for development that provides for a mixture of new and extended settlements which is supported in the Growth Corridor, but also recognises the limited potential of other settlements as demonstrated with the more modest and appropriate allocations for Pilgrims Hatch. This is supported.
10 The Settlement Hierarchy has been well defined and Pilgrim's Hatch is properly considered as an Urban Neighbourhood as part of Settlement Category 1. This is supported. (Para.s 2.10 and 2.11).
11 The calculations and housing supply requirements as calculated in para.s 4.16 and 4.17 are supported as a reasonable minimum target for the District over the Plan period as the National Housing Delivery Test applies and is confirmed as met. The need for a 20% uplift to accord with the NPPF 2018 to achieve 456 dwellings per annum is supported.
12 Para. 4.21 confirms a pragmatic approch for housing delivery during the first five years of the Plan, seeking to achieve 310 dwellings per annum to 2023 and some 41 units per annum windfall. (See para. 4.17 of the Plan).
13 These appear potentially conservative assessments when the Sow N Grow site and adjoining land is considered as an example. Policy R07 seeks to achieve only 38 dwellings on the site of Sow N Grow Nursery and dwellings and the part of 346 Ongar Road. This will be referred to further below but more can be achieved close to perhaps 50 dwellings.
14 If this site is an example, there could be more potential dwellings achievable from use of smaller sites, sooner, during the Plan period, and this target could be therefore be exceeded.
15 Nevertheless the approach is supported.
16 It is noted Policies BE18 and BE20 seeks to protect and improve green and blue infrastructure and therefore the existing allotments and the trackway giving barrow access and egress will need to be protected to the rear of the Sow N Grown allocated site.
17 This is also in separate land ownership so this needs to be respected in any development policy for the allocation. (See ownership plans in Appendix 1 and further comments below).
18 It is not considered that this requires an amendment or criterion to be added to Policy R07 as it can be dealt with as a matter of detailed planning control in the preapplication / application process under emerging policies BE18 and BE20.
19 It is understood that Policy BE21 will only apply to garden land not forming part of an allocated site for development.
20 If it is considered by the Examiner that as drafted BE21 is not clear, then it is requested that there is a clarification by way of an explanatory paragraph to exclude the application of Policy BE21 to parts of sites in garden land use, such as identified in Policy R07.
21 Likewise para. 5.174 refers to the NPPF 2018 and the exclusion of gardens from the definition of previously developed land. However Annex 2 Glossary to the NPPF 2018 states with regard to previously developed land, land that is excluded includes:
"land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks .. "
22 As land in site R07 includes residential garden land to the Bungalow and dwelling at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also to 346 Ongar Road, which is currently outside the development/settlement boundary and in the countryside/green belt, it will be previously developed land. When it is brought into the settlement boundary and out of the green belt upon adoption there may be a need to clarify the application of this explanatory paragraph which forms part of the emerging Local Plan; as referred to above.
23 If the Examiner agrees, there should be a further clarification to para. 5.174 to exclude gardens outside built up areas to accord with the definition in the NPPF 2018, and to provide certainty where part of allocated development sites which become part of built up areas.
24 Policy HP01 is noted. However, HP01B states: "Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site".
25 Where an allocated site is in two or more separate ownerships and separated by a physical barrier or legal ownership, this criterion may be difficult to apply and could delay or halt development. For example, the land at Sow N Grow Nursery is separated from the land at 346 Ongar Road by the access-way to the allotments and the access-way is understood to be unregistered land owned by a third party, a foreign national of unknown abode. There may not be the ability to co-operate and undertake development for the entire allocated site as a single entity as this Policy, perhaps, envisages.
26 If the Examiner agrees, it would be preferable that there should be a further clarification or explanatory paragraph to Policy HP01B to allow for smaller sites in separate ownerships, say under 1 hectare) to be excluded from the Policy. This would facilitate quicker delivery of such sites. It would also better accord with the NPPF 2018. (See para. 68 of the NPPF 2018, noting the Sow N Grow part of the site is less than 1 hectare (about 0.93 hectares) - in particular also para. 68a and the requirement for 10% delivery of sites of less than 1 hectare, with the further smaller separate parcel at 346 Ongar Road).
27 Policy HP03B requires a residential density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare and this is supported. On the Sow N Grow and adjoining land identified in Policy R07 the total area exceeds one hectare but only 34 dwellings are suggested for the site. This is considered not to fulfil the site potential for the further reasons given above and below. See also the proposed layout plan submitted for pre-application advice in Appendix 2. (Consent has been given by the Armiger family for Mrs Dunbar to refer to this and the pre-application discussions).
28 If the Examiner agrees, then the words "at least" should be inserted into the potential site capacity of the Sow N Grow site to better reflect Policy HP03B. 29 Para. 7.20 confirms there will be 47.39 hectares of new employment land allocated in the District, and this will exceed requirements. There is therefore no need to retain poorly arranged and constructed buildings providing poor quality employment land uses, especially on allocated development site for badly needed housing. (Such as at the Sow N Grow Nursery site part of the allocated site).
30 The employment land policies and land allocations are supported as sound.


31 The Plan, in para. 8.85 confirms the main purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF 2018:
"i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ii. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land".
32 The land at Sow N Grow Nursery, the dwellings therein and the land adjoining included in the allocated site in Policy R07 is to be taken out of the Green Belt. It fails to meet or contribute to the relevant main purposes of the Green Belt (i), (ii), (iii) and will if released contribute to regeneration of this unattractive and poorly arranged site. The release from the Green Belt and Green Belt policy is supported.
33 Policy NE12 is also supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.
34 Policy NE13A and NE13B are supported as it makes clear that allocated sites are being taken out of the Green Belt, providing that the benefits sought as set out in para. 8.114 are realistic and do not harm viability of development.
35 Policy R01, Dunton Hills Garden Village is not in principle objected to provided that no further development in dwelling numbers are allocated to this very large site. At 2,700 dwellings these are a substantial number and part of meeting local housing need and these will take time to build and supply.
36 It is all the more important that smaller, readily developable sites, such as that at Sow N Grow Nursery and land at 346 Ongar Road can be brought forward quickly and readily and without undue constraints to accord with para. 68 of the NPPF as referred to above.
37 Other larger housing site allocations are likewise not objected to, provided that there is no significant additional dwelling allocations added to them, either by way of additional land, or by way of significant additional density and dwelling provision, to the larger allocated sites.
38 Policy R07 is therefore fully supported, although the potential number of dwellings achievable on the site as defined in the Policy on Plan on page 342 appears to be an underestimate.
39 It should also be noted that, as above, the site is best considered as being in two parts. The first being the Bungalow at the Nursery, and its garden; the further dwelling and garden; the remaining garden centre/plant sales buildings, together with the various business uses on the land comprising all of the Sow N Grow Nursery land up the allotments trackway all being one part. (This is shown as the ownership plan in Appendix 1 as submitted for pre-application advice. The site is now owned by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger. The second part is the garden land at 346 Ongar Road edged red on the title plan is owned by Mrs Heather Dunbar.
40 The trackway to the allotments shown brown on the title extract plan for the site on Ongar Road is, I am advised, thought to be owned by an unknown person resident in Morroco, in an unknown location. The land is also thought not to be registered.
41 There is a right for access from the public highway along the trackway by wheelbarrow to the allotments. It is unlikely that this land can be readily acquired by either adjoining party or any third party developer, and so compulsory purchase powers may be required to complete and use this land. This would give rise to delay and expense in developing out all of the defined allocated site shown on page 342.
42 Accordingly, I am instructed by all the Armiger family owners of the land at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also by Mrs Dunbar of 346 Ongar Road, to bring this to the attention of the Local Planning Authority and the Local Plan Examiner. Relevant ownership plans are in Appendix 1.
43 This need not have any impact on developing the defined and allocated site, save in detail, by retaining the access-way to and from the allotments. It should be noted that the land is in two separate ownerships and best developed separately to meet the Local Plan objectives and housing delivery as small sites below 1 hectare as referred to above.
44 Both landowners have instructed me to submit a Response to the Submission Copy Local Plan. Both landowners are willing and able to release land for development once the Plan is adopted. In the case of the Sow Grow Nursery site the Armiger family may develop the land themselves once certainty is provided.
45 It is likely that the Sow N Grow site could be redeveloped to provide up to 42 dwellings as demonstrated by the pre-application advice drawing submitted to the local planning authority and reproduced as Appendix 2.
46 Although no detailed assessments have been undertaken the land north of the trackway could be developed by way of a private drive access from the Ongar Road to deliver some 4-5 dwellings or more, subject to feasibility appraisals and preapplication advice.
47 This suggests some 47 dwellings in total could be provided on the allocated site.
48 Accordingly if the Local Plan Examiner agrees, it would be appropriate to amend Policy R07 to state as shown in bold:"provision for around at least 38 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing"
49 If agreed then para. 9.117 needs to be amended to match.
50 Para. 9.118 would not appear to require amendment as a further access can be provided to that part of the site at 346 Ongar Road separately; possibly by way of a private drive for a smaller development.
51 There is no objection to the provision of landscaping buffers proportionate to the park and garden as well as allotment amenity referred to in the Policy. This can be a matter of detailed design.
52 The location of the allocated site just within a Critical Drainage Area is noted as referred to in Policy R07. Initial inquiries of Essex County Council suggest that concerns arising will be minor and likely to be readily resolved by on site design details and if necessary on site mitigation and attenuation measures. These can be dealt with through the development control process.
53 With the above minor amendments, and the noting of the ownership position, then Policy R07 and Allocated Site Plan and other references to the site in the Local Plan Submission Copy can be fully supported. Without such amendments the Policy is still supported but it is considered, given the land ownership position, that this would better clarify the Policy, and therefore the implementation of the Plan.
55 With all the above amendments the Submission Copy Local Plan can then be fully supported.
56 The Plan will then have been fully positively prepared and be positive and proactive as required in the NPPF.
57 There has been an effective review of brownfield sites and previously developed land. The evidence base confirms this. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site, as now defined, confirms this, as well as its inclusion in the Brownfield Register.
58 There has been an effective review of Green Belt Boundaries by the Local Planning Authority as required by the NPPF 2018 when preparing a development plan. The exceptional circumstances required for development plan boundary changes have been sufficiently been taken into account and amendments made. Locations of previously developed land in the Green Belt have been properly assessed in appropriate detail. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and adjoining land as shown on Plan on page 234, as now defined, confirms this.
59 The sequential approach adopted has identified sustainable development opportunities. This indicates a sound plan has been prepared.
60 The methodology, review and approach and the policies to be adopted broadly reflect the adopted settlement hierarchy and the sustainable development opportunities, and provided there are no major changes in the allocations and numbers to the sites allocated, this can be supported even if it is not, by others, considered ideal.
61 In the High Court decision, Calverton Parish Council, Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council v Peveril Securities Limited and UKPP (Totton) Limited, [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin), it was confirmed there is no single way specified to undertake a green belt review in the NPPF. It would be a matter of planning judgment.
62 Para. 52 of the Judgement also states an ideal approach is not necessary to be legally sufficient for an Inspector at an Examination in Public, and by extension any planning decision maker:
"Although it seems clear that what I have called an ideal approach has not been explicitly followed on a systematic basis in the instant case, it is a counsel of perfection. Planning Inspectors do not write court judgments. The issue which properly arises is whether the Inspector's more discursive and open-textured approach, which was clearly carried through into the ACS, was legally sufficient.
63 Accordingly the Local Plan is supported. It need not be ideal in all respects. However the selection of the Sow N Grow site is evidence of a sound Plan with regard to housing site allocation and delivery, and green belt boundary changes. This site allocation is supported.
64 It is based on good evidence and the Housing Delivery Test required by the NPPF. It is therefore positively prepared and justified. It is consistent with the NPPF.
65 It should also be effective over the Plan period. The Housing Trajectory is supported. (Appendix 1. Page 309 of the Plan).
66 The Plan appears legally compliant and there appears to have been adequate cooperation with adjoining local planning authorities.
67 Accordingly the Plan is supported. Some minor amendments are suggested above but these are not considered essential. It is left for the Local Plan Examiner to consider and decide.
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF 13 March 2019
Appear yes -
Why?

I may wish to appear at the examination in due course to support the plan and comment on other party's responses.

Amend and clarify policy HP01B

SOW N GROW NURSERY AND ADJOINING SITES MAKING UP SITE R07.
BRENTWOOD DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN SUBMISSION DOCUMENT.
CONSULTATION RESPONSE FOR MR DEKEK ARMIGER Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger, THE BUNGALOW, SOW N
GROW NURSERY, PILGRIMS HATCH, BRENTWOOD, ESSEX CM15 9JH.

Was instructed as Agent by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger as separate, but identical Responses, as being the joint owners of the larger part of the land comprising the Sow N Grow Nursery Allocated Site and Bungalow and dwelling, as defined in Policy R07, and as shown in part, on the plan on page 324. Please find enclosed a completed Response Form on behalf of Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger together with a continuation and supporting Statement of Response to the Local Plan which with this letter comprise the Response to the Consultation. For copies of original submission see attachments on planning portal.

The Statement sets out the background to the inclusion of the site in the Submission Local Plan, and includes reference to pre-application advice taken with regard to the land owned by the Armiger family, their purchase of further freehold land under the former telecoms mast operated by O2, and formerly owned by Pinnacle Towers, to complete their assembly of their site.
There is also a reference to the potential development of the land they own within the Allocated Site (R07) by way of a scheme showing 42 dwellings as previously submitted to and commented upon by the Local Planning Authority in the pre-application advice process. (See Appendix 2 to the Response Statement submitted with this letter).
The Response Statements submitted confirm that the whole of the land south of the trackway to the allotments is owned by Armiger family members. It is considered to be previously developed land. Itis currently within the defined green belt. There are exceptional circumstances for a boundary change. There are short term tenants occupying the commercial buildings and the dwellings in their ownership are occupied by the Armiger family or by residential short term tenants. The Armiger owned part of the site is therefore readily capable of being made available for development for residential use within the first five years of the development plan period.
Likewise it is confirmed that Mrs Dunbar is willing to bring that part of the site defined in the Plan and on page 324 for development in the early part of the Plan period within her ownership, separately, and it is likely that this area could accommodate up to five dwellings with a private access driveway.
As this is a smaller site with potential for build out by smaller local builders in the early part of the Plan period, this Allocated Site will provide housing delivery in the early part of the Housing Trajectory pending larger site allocations coming forward in due course, but where infrastructure investments are required. See part of Policy SP02A which states:
"Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033".
The Response Statement further confirms the Armiger family land is part of the Allocated Site and lies to the south of, and limited by, a trackway running approximately east/west, giving allotment holders access to the back-land allotments. This trackway is not in the ownership of the Armiger Family, nor is it in the ownership of Mrs Heath Dunbar the owner of the land north of the trackway. The site ownership plans in Appendix 1 to the submitted Statement confirm. The land allocated in the Sow N Grow Site owned by Mrs Dunbar comprises part of the garden to Rose Cottage, 346 Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch. The Statement to the Response confirms this and a title plan is submitted to confirm the extent of ownership. The Local Planning Authority has taken some considerable time to prepare and produce this Submission Copy Plan, and following the change in National Planning Practice Guidance by Sir Eric Pickles, pre-application advice matters have been left in abeyance by the Armiger Family for some years. The land owned by Mrs Dunbar has not been included in the pre-application advice application and can be seen to be separated from it by the trackway.
Nevertheless it is previously developed land as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework Glossary (Annex 2), and it is in this highly sustainable location adjoining an urban neighbourhood and can provide dwellings for the same sound reasons that the larger site shown in the Plan on page 324 was selected and allocated. It too can be brought forward by a willing owner. This is an important and material consideration for the site and the Plan so it can be adopted to deliver housing in the Brentwood area as early as possible and the allocation of this site can achieve this.
The Statement for Mrs Dunbar sets out why the Local Plan is considered to fully meet the requirements and criteria for the adoption of a Local Plan for the Examination in Public. The Statement also refers to case law for Local Plans, particularly with regard to green belt boundaries. Plans do not have to be ideal or perfect in all respects. Some minor suggestions are submitted for the Examiner's discretion.
The earliest adoption of the Plan and the whole of the Allocated Site is supported and would be welcomed. It is supported by all the Armiger family and also by Mrs Dunbar, as the Sow N Grow Site R07 without amendment. The Plan is considered to be the result of up to date pro-active plan making, based upon firm evidence and analysis, accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (and the Housing Delivery Test) and legally compliant. It is therefore sound.
Furthermore the Local Plan is considered to now have a comprehensive evidence base to fully and properly review all available brownfield/ previously developed land for future development, both within, and without the defined settlement boundaries of the District and in the Green Belt. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery and land adjoining as shown in the Plan on page 324 is a clear example of these matters being achieved, with a readily developable and sustainable site being allocated in response to the Call for Sites, the Brownfield Register and the Consultations. It is understood that at the Council Meeting in November 2018 the Councillor objecting to the inclusion of the Allocated Site withdrew objections.
The Plan is therefore supported for the earliest adoption and it is trusted that this Letter, the Response Form, and Supporting Statement submitted for Mrs Dunbar are brought to the Examiner's attention. Mrs Dunbar would like to attend the Examination in Public in due course. I should be pleased to discuss matters arising from this Letter, Response Form, and Statement, with the Local Planning Authority should it wish to do so.
Yours sincerely
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF Copy: Mrs Heather Dunbar

I consider that the Local Plan is both sound and legally compliant, having regard to the delivery of assessed housing need in accordance with the Housing Delivery Test as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, and in the Local Plan, over the Plan period. As also set out in the submitted Statement and the Cover Letter. It is important that the Local Plan delivers the housing needed over the Plan period in a sustainable manner by the selection of appropriate sites for development well served by public transport, whether by way of large such as at Dunton Hill, but also and just as importantly, by way of smaller sites, especially within and next to urban neighbourhoods, and comprising previously developed land. Pilgrims Hatch has been appropriately defined as such a neighbourhood in the Settlement Hierarchy. This is supported. Where there is previously developed land, this should be allocated for development as a priority, even if within the green belt; especially where located next to urban neighbourhoods where local services and public transport are available. The Sow N Grow site is just such a site and accordingly, the green belt boundaries can be amended accordingly, reflecting the exceptional circumstances prevailing. The approach is sound and effective, and this is also supported. I therefore strongly support the Plan, the allocation of this site, and Policy R07.

 
This Response should be read in conjunction with the Response Form and Cover Letter as also submitted.
The Council's Local Plan Submission Development Plan Document identifies a housing need for some 7,752 dwellings over the Plan period 2016-2033 and is confirmed by the Housing Delivery Test from the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. See also Policy SP02A referred to below, where there will be a lower annual rate of delivery expected to 2023 than for the later period of 2023-2033: ("Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033).
The identification and allocation of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and the land adjoining at 346 Ongar Road is a good example of positive and proactive planmaking reflecting the status and priority of the land as previously developed land where it can be sustainably redeveloped.
The exceptional circumstances that direct that the Green Belt Boundary should be amended have been recognised by the Local Planning Authority and are supported.
1 The Sow N Grow Nursery with dwellings as shown in Appendix 1 has been promoted for some years now as a potential highly sustainable development site for release from the Green Belt to meet local housing needs. It also tidies up a site of poor visual quality that makes no contribution to, or has any function or purpose that contributes to the Green Belt. Part of the land adjoining, separated by a trackway from the Sow N Grow Nursery has been included in the Site Allocation, described as Sow N Grow Nursery, but forms part of the garden of 346 Ongar Road and is owned by Mrs Dunbar, also as shown in the title plan in Appendix 1.
2 Progress in pre-application advice discussions has been made, first by Bellway Homes and then by the Armiger family for the Sow N Grow site. However preapplication discussions have been delayed and put in abeyance by changes to National Planning Practice Guidance issued by Sir Eric Pickles, when housing need was not to be considered a very special circumstance for green belt development. The release of green belt land for development should be way of development plan as the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 now makes clear as policy, in para. 136: "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans".
3 The Armiger family have deferred further pre-application discussions pending the adoption of this Local Plan as certainty is required before further progress and investment can be made in the site. Their intentions to redevelop remain firm as confirmed by their continuing investment in the pre-application process, in recent site acquisition, and in their management of the commercial and residential tenant occupiers.
4 Mrs Dunbar is also firm in her intention to seek to develop her part of the allocated site once the Local Plan is adopted. Although not part of the pre-application discussions to date, upon adoption advice will be sought from the local planning authority on how best to develop her part of the site.
5 Accordingly both the Armiger family's and Mrs Dunbar's land comprising the allocated site remain available and capable for early development in the Plan period. It would be suitable for small builder construction, with the Sow N Grow part being less than a hectare (0.93 hectares), and so readily accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 by which this emerging Local Plan will be assessed as a post January 2019 Plan. See in particular para. 214, Annex 1 to the NPPF:
"The policies in the previous Framework published in March 2012 will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those plans were submitted on or before 24 January 2019. Where such plans are withdrawn or otherwise do not proceed to become part of the development plan, the policies contained in this Framework will apply to any subsequent plan produced for the area concerned.
6 Furthermore Mrs Dunbar's land to the north of the trackway within the Allocated Site as shown on page 234 of the Local Plan is garden land beyond and outside of any defined urban area, and also falls to be previously developed land. (See Annex 2. Glossary to the NPPF 2018). Mrs Dunbar also wishes to see the land she owns developed and is also willing to bring her land forward for development quickly after the adoption of the Local Plan, and within the first five years.
7 This Submission Copy Local Plan takes full account of the NPPF 2018 - see para. 1.24 of the Local Plan.
8 Para. 2.16 also confirms brownfield sites in the Green Belt will be brought forward where appropriate. This has been achieved with regard to the Sow N Grow site and land adjoining, despite 89% of the District being Green Belt. (See para.2.54 of the Local Plan).
9 The Plan also has developed a strategy for development that provides for a mixture of new and extended settlements which is supported in the Growth Corridor, but also recognises the limited potential of other settlements as demonstrated with the more modest and appropriate allocations for Pilgrims Hatch. This is supported.
10 The Settlement Hierarchy has been well defined and Pilgrim's Hatch is properly considered as an Urban Neighbourhood as part of Settlement Category 1. This is supported. (Para.s 2.10 and 2.11).
11 The calculations and housing supply requirements as calculated in para.s 4.16 and 4.17 are supported as a reasonable minimum target for the District over the Plan period as the National Housing Delivery Test applies and is confirmed as met. The need for a 20% uplift to accord with the NPPF 2018 to achieve 456 dwellings per annum is supported.
12 Para. 4.21 confirms a pragmatic approch for housing delivery during the first five years of the Plan, seeking to achieve 310 dwellings per annum to 2023 and some 41 units per annum windfall. (See para. 4.17 of the Plan).
13 These appear potentially conservative assessments when the Sow N Grow site and adjoining land is considered as an example. Policy R07 seeks to achieve only 38 dwellings on the site of Sow N Grow Nursery and dwellings and the part of 346 Ongar Road. This will be referred to further below but more can be achieved close to perhaps 50 dwellings.
14 If this site is an example, there could be more potential dwellings achievable from use of smaller sites, sooner, during the Plan period, and this target could be therefore be exceeded.
15 Nevertheless the approach is supported.
16 It is noted Policies BE18 and BE20 seeks to protect and improve green and blue infrastructure and therefore the existing allotments and the trackway giving barrow access and egress will need to be protected to the rear of the Sow N Grown allocated site.
17 This is also in separate land ownership so this needs to be respected in any development policy for the allocation. (See ownership plans in Appendix 1 and further comments below).
18 It is not considered that this requires an amendment or criterion to be added to Policy R07 as it can be dealt with as a matter of detailed planning control in the preapplication / application process under emerging policies BE18 and BE20.
19 It is understood that Policy BE21 will only apply to garden land not forming part of an allocated site for development.
20 If it is considered by the Examiner that as drafted BE21 is not clear, then it is requested that there is a clarification by way of an explanatory paragraph to exclude the application of Policy BE21 to parts of sites in garden land use, such as identified in Policy R07.
21 Likewise para. 5.174 refers to the NPPF 2018 and the exclusion of gardens from the definition of previously developed land. However Annex 2 Glossary to the NPPF 2018 states with regard to previously developed land, land that is excluded includes:
"land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks .. "
22 As land in site R07 includes residential garden land to the Bungalow and dwelling at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also to 346 Ongar Road, which is currently outside the development/settlement boundary and in the countryside/green belt, it will be previously developed land. When it is brought into the settlement boundary and out of the green belt upon adoption there may be a need to clarify the application of this explanatory paragraph which forms part of the emerging Local Plan; as referred to above.
23 If the Examiner agrees, there should be a further clarification to para. 5.174 to exclude gardens outside built up areas to accord with the definition in the NPPF 2018, and to provide certainty where part of allocated development sites which become part of built up areas.
24 Policy HP01 is noted. However, HP01B states: "Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site".
25 Where an allocated site is in two or more separate ownerships and separated by a physical barrier or legal ownership, this criterion may be difficult to apply and could delay or halt development. For example, the land at Sow N Grow Nursery is separated from the land at 346 Ongar Road by the access-way to the allotments and the access-way is understood to be unregistered land owned by a third party, a foreign national of unknown abode. There may not be the ability to co-operate and undertake development for the entire allocated site as a single entity as this Policy, perhaps, envisages.
26 If the Examiner agrees, it would be preferable that there should be a further clarification or explanatory paragraph to Policy HP01B to allow for smaller sites in separate ownerships, say under 1 hectare) to be excluded from the Policy. This would facilitate quicker delivery of such sites. It would also better accord with the NPPF 2018. (See para. 68 of the NPPF 2018, noting the Sow N Grow part of the site is less than 1 hectare (about 0.93 hectares) - in particular also para. 68a and the requirement for 10% delivery of sites of less than 1 hectare, with the further smaller separate parcel at 346 Ongar Road).
27 Policy HP03B requires a residential density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare and this is supported. On the Sow N Grow and adjoining land identified in Policy R07 the total area exceeds one hectare but only 34 dwellings are suggested for the site. This is considered not to fulfil the site potential for the further reasons given above and below. See also the proposed layout plan submitted for pre-application advice in Appendix 2. (Consent has been given by the Armiger family for Mrs Dunbar to refer to this and the pre-application discussions).
28 If the Examiner agrees, then the words "at least" should be inserted into the potential site capacity of the Sow N Grow site to better reflect Policy HP03B. 29 Para. 7.20 confirms there will be 47.39 hectares of new employment land allocated in the District, and this will exceed requirements. There is therefore no need to retain poorly arranged and constructed buildings providing poor quality employment land uses, especially on allocated development site for badly needed housing. (Such as at the Sow N Grow Nursery site part of the allocated site).
30 The employment land policies and land allocations are supported as sound.


31 The Plan, in para. 8.85 confirms the main purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF 2018:
"i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ii. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land".
32 The land at Sow N Grow Nursery, the dwellings therein and the land adjoining included in the allocated site in Policy R07 is to be taken out of the Green Belt. It fails to meet or contribute to the relevant main purposes of the Green Belt (i), (ii), (iii) and will if released contribute to regeneration of this unattractive and poorly arranged site. The release from the Green Belt and Green Belt policy is supported.
33 Policy NE12 is also supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.
34 Policy NE13A and NE13B are supported as it makes clear that allocated sites are being taken out of the Green Belt, providing that the benefits sought as set out in para. 8.114 are realistic and do not harm viability of development.
35 Policy R01, Dunton Hills Garden Village is not in principle objected to provided that no further development in dwelling numbers are allocated to this very large site. At 2,700 dwellings these are a substantial number and part of meeting local housing need and these will take time to build and supply.
36 It is all the more important that smaller, readily developable sites, such as that at Sow N Grow Nursery and land at 346 Ongar Road can be brought forward quickly and readily and without undue constraints to accord with para. 68 of the NPPF as referred to above.
37 Other larger housing site allocations are likewise not objected to, provided that there is no significant additional dwelling allocations added to them, either by way of additional land, or by way of significant additional density and dwelling provision, to the larger allocated sites.
38 Policy R07 is therefore fully supported, although the potential number of dwellings achievable on the site as defined in the Policy on Plan on page 342 appears to be an underestimate.
39 It should also be noted that, as above, the site is best considered as being in two parts. The first being the Bungalow at the Nursery, and its garden; the further dwelling and garden; the remaining garden centre/plant sales buildings, together with the various business uses on the land comprising all of the Sow N Grow Nursery land up the allotments trackway all being one part. (This is shown as the ownership plan in Appendix 1 as submitted for pre-application advice. The site is now owned by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger. The second part is the garden land at 346 Ongar Road edged red on the title plan is owned by Mrs Heather Dunbar.
40 The trackway to the allotments shown brown on the title extract plan for the site on Ongar Road is, I am advised, thought to be owned by an unknown person resident in Morroco, in an unknown location. The land is also thought not to be registered.
41 There is a right for access from the public highway along the trackway by wheelbarrow to the allotments. It is unlikely that this land can be readily acquired by either adjoining party or any third party developer, and so compulsory purchase powers may be required to complete and use this land. This would give rise to delay and expense in developing out all of the defined allocated site shown on page 342.
42 Accordingly, I am instructed by all the Armiger family owners of the land at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also by Mrs Dunbar of 346 Ongar Road, to bring this to the attention of the Local Planning Authority and the Local Plan Examiner. Relevant ownership plans are in Appendix 1.
43 This need not have any impact on developing the defined and allocated site, save in detail, by retaining the access-way to and from the allotments. It should be noted that the land is in two separate ownerships and best developed separately to meet the Local Plan objectives and housing delivery as small sites below 1 hectare as referred to above.
44 Both landowners have instructed me to submit a Response to the Submission Copy Local Plan. Both landowners are willing and able to release land for development once the Plan is adopted. In the case of the Sow Grow Nursery site the Armiger family may develop the land themselves once certainty is provided.
45 It is likely that the Sow N Grow site could be redeveloped to provide up to 42 dwellings as demonstrated by the pre-application advice drawing submitted to the local planning authority and reproduced as Appendix 2.
46 Although no detailed assessments have been undertaken the land north of the trackway could be developed by way of a private drive access from the Ongar Road to deliver some 4-5 dwellings or more, subject to feasibility appraisals and preapplication advice.
47 This suggests some 47 dwellings in total could be provided on the allocated site.
48 Accordingly if the Local Plan Examiner agrees, it would be appropriate to amend Policy R07 to state as shown in bold:"provision for around at least 38 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing"
49 If agreed then para. 9.117 needs to be amended to match.
50 Para. 9.118 would not appear to require amendment as a further access can be provided to that part of the site at 346 Ongar Road separately; possibly by way of a private drive for a smaller development.
51 There is no objection to the provision of landscaping buffers proportionate to the park and garden as well as allotment amenity referred to in the Policy. This can be a matter of detailed design.
52 The location of the allocated site just within a Critical Drainage Area is noted as referred to in Policy R07. Initial inquiries of Essex County Council suggest that concerns arising will be minor and likely to be readily resolved by on site design details and if necessary on site mitigation and attenuation measures. These can be dealt with through the development control process.
53 With the above minor amendments, and the noting of the ownership position, then Policy R07 and Allocated Site Plan and other references to the site in the Local Plan Submission Copy can be fully supported. Without such amendments the Policy is still supported but it is considered, given the land ownership position, that this would better clarify the Policy, and therefore the implementation of the Plan.
55 With all the above amendments the Submission Copy Local Plan can then be fully supported.
56 The Plan will then have been fully positively prepared and be positive and proactive as required in the NPPF.
57 There has been an effective review of brownfield sites and previously developed land. The evidence base confirms this. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site, as now defined, confirms this, as well as its inclusion in the Brownfield Register.
58 There has been an effective review of Green Belt Boundaries by the Local Planning Authority as required by the NPPF 2018 when preparing a development plan. The exceptional circumstances required for development plan boundary changes have been sufficiently been taken into account and amendments made. Locations of previously developed land in the Green Belt have been properly assessed in appropriate detail. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and adjoining land as shown on Plan on page 234, as now defined, confirms this.
59 The sequential approach adopted has identified sustainable development opportunities. This indicates a sound plan has been prepared.
60 The methodology, review and approach and the policies to be adopted broadly reflect the adopted settlement hierarchy and the sustainable development opportunities, and provided there are no major changes in the allocations and numbers to the sites allocated, this can be supported even if it is not, by others, considered ideal.
61 In the High Court decision, Calverton Parish Council, Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council v Peveril Securities Limited and UKPP (Totton) Limited, [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin), it was confirmed there is no single way specified to undertake a green belt review in the NPPF. It would be a matter of planning judgment.
62 Para. 52 of the Judgement also states an ideal approach is not necessary to be legally sufficient for an Inspector at an Examination in Public, and by extension any planning decision maker:
"Although it seems clear that what I have called an ideal approach has not been explicitly followed on a systematic basis in the instant case, it is a counsel of perfection. Planning Inspectors do not write court judgments. The issue which properly arises is whether the Inspector's more discursive and open-textured approach, which was clearly carried through into the ACS, was legally sufficient.
63 Accordingly the Local Plan is supported. It need not be ideal in all respects. However the selection of the Sow N Grow site is evidence of a sound Plan with regard to housing site allocation and delivery, and green belt boundary changes. This site allocation is supported.
64 It is based on good evidence and the Housing Delivery Test required by the NPPF. It is therefore positively prepared and justified. It is consistent with the NPPF.
65 It should also be effective over the Plan period. The Housing Trajectory is supported. (Appendix 1. Page 309 of the Plan).
66 The Plan appears legally compliant and there appears to have been adequate cooperation with adjoining local planning authorities.
67 Accordingly the Plan is supported. Some minor amendments are suggested above but these are not considered essential. It is left for the Local Plan Examiner to consider and decide.
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF 13 March 2019
Appear yes -
Why?

I may wish to appear at the examination in due course to support the plan and comment on other party's responses.

SOW N GROW NURSERY AND ADJOINING SITES MAKING UP SITE R07.
BRENTWOOD DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN SUBMISSION DOCUMENT.
CONSULTATION RESPONSE FOR MR DEKEK ARMIGER Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger, THE BUNGALOW, SOW N
GROW NURSERY, PILGRIMS HATCH, BRENTWOOD, ESSEX CM15 9JH.

Was instructed as Agent by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger as separate, but identical Responses, as being the joint owners of the larger part of the land comprising the Sow N Grow Nursery Allocated Site and Bungalow and dwelling, as defined in Policy R07, and as shown in part, on the plan on page 324. Please find enclosed a completed Response Form on behalf of Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger together with a continuation and supporting Statement of Response to the Local Plan which with this letter comprise the Response to the Consultation. For copies of original submission see attachments on planning portal.

The Statement sets out the background to the inclusion of the site in the Submission Local Plan, and includes reference to pre-application advice taken with regard to the land owned by the Armiger family, their purchase of further freehold land under the former telecoms mast operated by O2, and formerly owned by Pinnacle Towers, to complete their assembly of their site.
There is also a reference to the potential development of the land they own within the Allocated Site (R07) by way of a scheme showing 42 dwellings as previously submitted to and commented upon by the Local Planning Authority in the pre-application advice process. (See Appendix 2 to the Response Statement submitted with this letter).
The Response Statements submitted confirm that the whole of the land south of the trackway to the allotments is owned by Armiger family members. It is considered to be previously developed land. Itis currently within the defined green belt. There are exceptional circumstances for a boundary change. There are short term tenants occupying the commercial buildings and the dwellings in their ownership are occupied by the Armiger family or by residential short term tenants. The Armiger owned part of the site is therefore readily capable of being made available for development for residential use within the first five years of the development plan period.
Likewise it is confirmed that Mrs Dunbar is willing to bring that part of the site defined in the Plan and on page 324 for development in the early part of the Plan period within her ownership, separately, and it is likely that this area could accommodate up to five dwellings with a private access driveway.
As this is a smaller site with potential for build out by smaller local builders in the early part of the Plan period, this Allocated Site will provide housing delivery in the early part of the Housing Trajectory pending larger site allocations coming forward in due course, but where infrastructure investments are required. See part of Policy SP02A which states:
"Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033".
The Response Statement further confirms the Armiger family land is part of the Allocated Site and lies to the south of, and limited by, a trackway running approximately east/west, giving allotment holders access to the back-land allotments. This trackway is not in the ownership of the Armiger Family, nor is it in the ownership of Mrs Heath Dunbar the owner of the land north of the trackway. The site ownership plans in Appendix 1 to the submitted Statement confirm. The land allocated in the Sow N Grow Site owned by Mrs Dunbar comprises part of the garden to Rose Cottage, 346 Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch. The Statement to the Response confirms this and a title plan is submitted to confirm the extent of ownership. The Local Planning Authority has taken some considerable time to prepare and produce this Submission Copy Plan, and following the change in National Planning Practice Guidance by Sir Eric Pickles, pre-application advice matters have been left in abeyance by the Armiger Family for some years. The land owned by Mrs Dunbar has not been included in the pre-application advice application and can be seen to be separated from it by the trackway.
Nevertheless it is previously developed land as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework Glossary (Annex 2), and it is in this highly sustainable location adjoining an urban neighbourhood and can provide dwellings for the same sound reasons that the larger site shown in the Plan on page 324 was selected and allocated. It too can be brought forward by a willing owner. This is an important and material consideration for the site and the Plan so it can be adopted to deliver housing in the Brentwood area as early as possible and the allocation of this site can achieve this.
The Statement for Mrs Dunbar sets out why the Local Plan is considered to fully meet the requirements and criteria for the adoption of a Local Plan for the Examination in Public. The Statement also refers to case law for Local Plans, particularly with regard to green belt boundaries. Plans do not have to be ideal or perfect in all respects. Some minor suggestions are submitted for the Examiner's discretion.
The earliest adoption of the Plan and the whole of the Allocated Site is supported and would be welcomed. It is supported by all the Armiger family and also by Mrs Dunbar, as the Sow N Grow Site R07 without amendment. The Plan is considered to be the result of up to date pro-active plan making, based upon firm evidence and analysis, accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (and the Housing Delivery Test) and legally compliant. It is therefore sound.
Furthermore the Local Plan is considered to now have a comprehensive evidence base to fully and properly review all available brownfield/ previously developed land for future development, both within, and without the defined settlement boundaries of the District and in the Green Belt. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery and land adjoining as shown in the Plan on page 324 is a clear example of these matters being achieved, with a readily developable and sustainable site being allocated in response to the Call for Sites, the Brownfield Register and the Consultations. It is understood that at the Council Meeting in November 2018 the Councillor objecting to the inclusion of the Allocated Site withdrew objections.
The Plan is therefore supported for the earliest adoption and it is trusted that this Letter, the Response Form, and Supporting Statement submitted for Mrs Dunbar are brought to the Examiner's attention. Mrs Dunbar would like to attend the Examination in Public in due course. I should be pleased to discuss matters arising from this Letter, Response Form, and Statement, with the Local Planning Authority should it wish to do so.
Yours sincerely
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF Copy: Mrs Heather Dunbar

I consider that the Local Plan is both sound and legally compliant, having regard to the delivery of assessed housing need in accordance with the Housing Delivery Test as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, and in the Local Plan, over the Plan period. As also set out in the submitted Statement and the Cover Letter. It is important that the Local Plan delivers the housing needed over the Plan period in a sustainable manner by the selection of appropriate sites for development well served by public transport, whether by way of large such as at Dunton Hill, but also and just as importantly, by way of smaller sites, especially within and next to urban neighbourhoods, and comprising previously developed land. Pilgrims Hatch has been appropriately defined as such a neighbourhood in the Settlement Hierarchy. This is supported. Where there is previously developed land, this should be allocated for development as a priority, even if within the green belt; especially where located next to urban neighbourhoods where local services and public transport are available. The Sow N Grow site is just such a site and accordingly, the green belt boundaries can be amended accordingly, reflecting the exceptional circumstances prevailing. The approach is sound and effective, and this is also supported. I therefore strongly support the Plan, the allocation of this site, and Policy R07.

 
This Response should be read in conjunction with the Response Form and Cover Letter as also submitted.
The Council's Local Plan Submission Development Plan Document identifies a housing need for some 7,752 dwellings over the Plan period 2016-2033 and is confirmed by the Housing Delivery Test from the National Planning Policy Framework 2018. See also Policy SP02A referred to below, where there will be a lower annual rate of delivery expected to 2023 than for the later period of 2023-2033: ("Provision is made for 7,752 new residential dwellings (net) to be built in the borough over the Plan period 2016-2033 at an annual average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 584 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033).
The identification and allocation of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and the land adjoining at 346 Ongar Road is a good example of positive and proactive planmaking reflecting the status and priority of the land as previously developed land where it can be sustainably redeveloped.
The exceptional circumstances that direct that the Green Belt Boundary should be amended have been recognised by the Local Planning Authority and are supported.
1 The Sow N Grow Nursery with dwellings as shown in Appendix 1 has been promoted for some years now as a potential highly sustainable development site for release from the Green Belt to meet local housing needs. It also tidies up a site of poor visual quality that makes no contribution to, or has any function or purpose that contributes to the Green Belt. Part of the land adjoining, separated by a trackway from the Sow N Grow Nursery has been included in the Site Allocation, described as Sow N Grow Nursery, but forms part of the garden of 346 Ongar Road and is owned by Mrs Dunbar, also as shown in the title plan in Appendix 1.
2 Progress in pre-application advice discussions has been made, first by Bellway Homes and then by the Armiger family for the Sow N Grow site. However preapplication discussions have been delayed and put in abeyance by changes to National Planning Practice Guidance issued by Sir Eric Pickles, when housing need was not to be considered a very special circumstance for green belt development. The release of green belt land for development should be way of development plan as the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 now makes clear as policy, in para. 136: "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans".
3 The Armiger family have deferred further pre-application discussions pending the adoption of this Local Plan as certainty is required before further progress and investment can be made in the site. Their intentions to redevelop remain firm as confirmed by their continuing investment in the pre-application process, in recent site acquisition, and in their management of the commercial and residential tenant occupiers.
4 Mrs Dunbar is also firm in her intention to seek to develop her part of the allocated site once the Local Plan is adopted. Although not part of the pre-application discussions to date, upon adoption advice will be sought from the local planning authority on how best to develop her part of the site.
5 Accordingly both the Armiger family's and Mrs Dunbar's land comprising the allocated site remain available and capable for early development in the Plan period. It would be suitable for small builder construction, with the Sow N Grow part being less than a hectare (0.93 hectares), and so readily accord with the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 by which this emerging Local Plan will be assessed as a post January 2019 Plan. See in particular para. 214, Annex 1 to the NPPF:
"The policies in the previous Framework published in March 2012 will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those plans were submitted on or before 24 January 2019. Where such plans are withdrawn or otherwise do not proceed to become part of the development plan, the policies contained in this Framework will apply to any subsequent plan produced for the area concerned.
6 Furthermore Mrs Dunbar's land to the north of the trackway within the Allocated Site as shown on page 234 of the Local Plan is garden land beyond and outside of any defined urban area, and also falls to be previously developed land. (See Annex 2. Glossary to the NPPF 2018). Mrs Dunbar also wishes to see the land she owns developed and is also willing to bring her land forward for development quickly after the adoption of the Local Plan, and within the first five years.
7 This Submission Copy Local Plan takes full account of the NPPF 2018 - see para. 1.24 of the Local Plan.
8 Para. 2.16 also confirms brownfield sites in the Green Belt will be brought forward where appropriate. This has been achieved with regard to the Sow N Grow site and land adjoining, despite 89% of the District being Green Belt. (See para.2.54 of the Local Plan).
9 The Plan also has developed a strategy for development that provides for a mixture of new and extended settlements which is supported in the Growth Corridor, but also recognises the limited potential of other settlements as demonstrated with the more modest and appropriate allocations for Pilgrims Hatch. This is supported.
10 The Settlement Hierarchy has been well defined and Pilgrim's Hatch is properly considered as an Urban Neighbourhood as part of Settlement Category 1. This is supported. (Para.s 2.10 and 2.11).
11 The calculations and housing supply requirements as calculated in para.s 4.16 and 4.17 are supported as a reasonable minimum target for the District over the Plan period as the National Housing Delivery Test applies and is confirmed as met. The need for a 20% uplift to accord with the NPPF 2018 to achieve 456 dwellings per annum is supported.
12 Para. 4.21 confirms a pragmatic approch for housing delivery during the first five years of the Plan, seeking to achieve 310 dwellings per annum to 2023 and some 41 units per annum windfall. (See para. 4.17 of the Plan).
13 These appear potentially conservative assessments when the Sow N Grow site and adjoining land is considered as an example. Policy R07 seeks to achieve only 38 dwellings on the site of Sow N Grow Nursery and dwellings and the part of 346 Ongar Road. This will be referred to further below but more can be achieved close to perhaps 50 dwellings.
14 If this site is an example, there could be more potential dwellings achievable from use of smaller sites, sooner, during the Plan period, and this target could be therefore be exceeded.
15 Nevertheless the approach is supported.
16 It is noted Policies BE18 and BE20 seeks to protect and improve green and blue infrastructure and therefore the existing allotments and the trackway giving barrow access and egress will need to be protected to the rear of the Sow N Grown allocated site.
17 This is also in separate land ownership so this needs to be respected in any development policy for the allocation. (See ownership plans in Appendix 1 and further comments below).
18 It is not considered that this requires an amendment or criterion to be added to Policy R07 as it can be dealt with as a matter of detailed planning control in the preapplication / application process under emerging policies BE18 and BE20.
19 It is understood that Policy BE21 will only apply to garden land not forming part of an allocated site for development.
20 If it is considered by the Examiner that as drafted BE21 is not clear, then it is requested that there is a clarification by way of an explanatory paragraph to exclude the application of Policy BE21 to parts of sites in garden land use, such as identified in Policy R07.
21 Likewise para. 5.174 refers to the NPPF 2018 and the exclusion of gardens from the definition of previously developed land. However Annex 2 Glossary to the NPPF 2018 states with regard to previously developed land, land that is excluded includes:
"land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks .. "
22 As land in site R07 includes residential garden land to the Bungalow and dwelling at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also to 346 Ongar Road, which is currently outside the development/settlement boundary and in the countryside/green belt, it will be previously developed land. When it is brought into the settlement boundary and out of the green belt upon adoption there may be a need to clarify the application of this explanatory paragraph which forms part of the emerging Local Plan; as referred to above.
23 If the Examiner agrees, there should be a further clarification to para. 5.174 to exclude gardens outside built up areas to accord with the definition in the NPPF 2018, and to provide certainty where part of allocated development sites which become part of built up areas.
24 Policy HP01 is noted. However, HP01B states: "Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site".
25 Where an allocated site is in two or more separate ownerships and separated by a physical barrier or legal ownership, this criterion may be difficult to apply and could delay or halt development. For example, the land at Sow N Grow Nursery is separated from the land at 346 Ongar Road by the access-way to the allotments and the access-way is understood to be unregistered land owned by a third party, a foreign national of unknown abode. There may not be the ability to co-operate and undertake development for the entire allocated site as a single entity as this Policy, perhaps, envisages.
26 If the Examiner agrees, it would be preferable that there should be a further clarification or explanatory paragraph to Policy HP01B to allow for smaller sites in separate ownerships, say under 1 hectare) to be excluded from the Policy. This would facilitate quicker delivery of such sites. It would also better accord with the NPPF 2018. (See para. 68 of the NPPF 2018, noting the Sow N Grow part of the site is less than 1 hectare (about 0.93 hectares) - in particular also para. 68a and the requirement for 10% delivery of sites of less than 1 hectare, with the further smaller separate parcel at 346 Ongar Road).
27 Policy HP03B requires a residential density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare and this is supported. On the Sow N Grow and adjoining land identified in Policy R07 the total area exceeds one hectare but only 34 dwellings are suggested for the site. This is considered not to fulfil the site potential for the further reasons given above and below. See also the proposed layout plan submitted for pre-application advice in Appendix 2. (Consent has been given by the Armiger family for Mrs Dunbar to refer to this and the pre-application discussions).
28 If the Examiner agrees, then the words "at least" should be inserted into the potential site capacity of the Sow N Grow site to better reflect Policy HP03B. 29 Para. 7.20 confirms there will be 47.39 hectares of new employment land allocated in the District, and this will exceed requirements. There is therefore no need to retain poorly arranged and constructed buildings providing poor quality employment land uses, especially on allocated development site for badly needed housing. (Such as at the Sow N Grow Nursery site part of the allocated site).
30 The employment land policies and land allocations are supported as sound.


31 The Plan, in para. 8.85 confirms the main purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF 2018:
"i. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; ii. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; iii. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; iv. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and v. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land".
32 The land at Sow N Grow Nursery, the dwellings therein and the land adjoining included in the allocated site in Policy R07 is to be taken out of the Green Belt. It fails to meet or contribute to the relevant main purposes of the Green Belt (i), (ii), (iii) and will if released contribute to regeneration of this unattractive and poorly arranged site. The release from the Green Belt and Green Belt policy is supported.
33 Policy NE12 is also supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.
34 Policy NE13A and NE13B are supported as it makes clear that allocated sites are being taken out of the Green Belt, providing that the benefits sought as set out in para. 8.114 are realistic and do not harm viability of development.
35 Policy R01, Dunton Hills Garden Village is not in principle objected to provided that no further development in dwelling numbers are allocated to this very large site. At 2,700 dwellings these are a substantial number and part of meeting local housing need and these will take time to build and supply.
36 It is all the more important that smaller, readily developable sites, such as that at Sow N Grow Nursery and land at 346 Ongar Road can be brought forward quickly and readily and without undue constraints to accord with para. 68 of the NPPF as referred to above.
37 Other larger housing site allocations are likewise not objected to, provided that there is no significant additional dwelling allocations added to them, either by way of additional land, or by way of significant additional density and dwelling provision, to the larger allocated sites.
38 Policy R07 is therefore fully supported, although the potential number of dwellings achievable on the site as defined in the Policy on Plan on page 342 appears to be an underestimate.
39 It should also be noted that, as above, the site is best considered as being in two parts. The first being the Bungalow at the Nursery, and its garden; the further dwelling and garden; the remaining garden centre/plant sales buildings, together with the various business uses on the land comprising all of the Sow N Grow Nursery land up the allotments trackway all being one part. (This is shown as the ownership plan in Appendix 1 as submitted for pre-application advice. The site is now owned by Mr Derek Armiger, Ms Kim Armiger and Ms Maxine Armiger. The second part is the garden land at 346 Ongar Road edged red on the title plan is owned by Mrs Heather Dunbar.
40 The trackway to the allotments shown brown on the title extract plan for the site on Ongar Road is, I am advised, thought to be owned by an unknown person resident in Morroco, in an unknown location. The land is also thought not to be registered.
41 There is a right for access from the public highway along the trackway by wheelbarrow to the allotments. It is unlikely that this land can be readily acquired by either adjoining party or any third party developer, and so compulsory purchase powers may be required to complete and use this land. This would give rise to delay and expense in developing out all of the defined allocated site shown on page 342.
42 Accordingly, I am instructed by all the Armiger family owners of the land at Sow N Grow Nursery, and also by Mrs Dunbar of 346 Ongar Road, to bring this to the attention of the Local Planning Authority and the Local Plan Examiner. Relevant ownership plans are in Appendix 1.
43 This need not have any impact on developing the defined and allocated site, save in detail, by retaining the access-way to and from the allotments. It should be noted that the land is in two separate ownerships and best developed separately to meet the Local Plan objectives and housing delivery as small sites below 1 hectare as referred to above.
44 Both landowners have instructed me to submit a Response to the Submission Copy Local Plan. Both landowners are willing and able to release land for development once the Plan is adopted. In the case of the Sow Grow Nursery site the Armiger family may develop the land themselves once certainty is provided.
45 It is likely that the Sow N Grow site could be redeveloped to provide up to 42 dwellings as demonstrated by the pre-application advice drawing submitted to the local planning authority and reproduced as Appendix 2.
46 Although no detailed assessments have been undertaken the land north of the trackway could be developed by way of a private drive access from the Ongar Road to deliver some 4-5 dwellings or more, subject to feasibility appraisals and preapplication advice.
47 This suggests some 47 dwellings in total could be provided on the allocated site.
48 Accordingly if the Local Plan Examiner agrees, it would be appropriate to amend Policy R07 to state as shown in bold:"provision for around at least 38 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing"
49 If agreed then para. 9.117 needs to be amended to match.
50 Para. 9.118 would not appear to require amendment as a further access can be provided to that part of the site at 346 Ongar Road separately; possibly by way of a private drive for a smaller development.
51 There is no objection to the provision of landscaping buffers proportionate to the park and garden as well as allotment amenity referred to in the Policy. This can be a matter of detailed design.
52 The location of the allocated site just within a Critical Drainage Area is noted as referred to in Policy R07. Initial inquiries of Essex County Council suggest that concerns arising will be minor and likely to be readily resolved by on site design details and if necessary on site mitigation and attenuation measures. These can be dealt with through the development control process.
53 With the above minor amendments, and the noting of the ownership position, then Policy R07 and Allocated Site Plan and other references to the site in the Local Plan Submission Copy can be fully supported. Without such amendments the Policy is still supported but it is considered, given the land ownership position, that this would better clarify the Policy, and therefore the implementation of the Plan.
55 With all the above amendments the Submission Copy Local Plan can then be fully supported.
56 The Plan will then have been fully positively prepared and be positive and proactive as required in the NPPF.
57 There has been an effective review of brownfield sites and previously developed land. The evidence base confirms this. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site, as now defined, confirms this, as well as its inclusion in the Brownfield Register.
58 There has been an effective review of Green Belt Boundaries by the Local Planning Authority as required by the NPPF 2018 when preparing a development plan. The exceptional circumstances required for development plan boundary changes have been sufficiently been taken into account and amendments made. Locations of previously developed land in the Green Belt have been properly assessed in appropriate detail. The inclusion of the Sow N Grow Nursery Site and adjoining land as shown on Plan on page 234, as now defined, confirms this.
59 The sequential approach adopted has identified sustainable development opportunities. This indicates a sound plan has been prepared.
60 The methodology, review and approach and the policies to be adopted broadly reflect the adopted settlement hierarchy and the sustainable development opportunities, and provided there are no major changes in the allocations and numbers to the sites allocated, this can be supported even if it is not, by others, considered ideal.
61 In the High Court decision, Calverton Parish Council, Nottingham City Council, Broxtowe Borough Council, Gedling Borough Council v Peveril Securities Limited and UKPP (Totton) Limited, [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin), it was confirmed there is no single way specified to undertake a green belt review in the NPPF. It would be a matter of planning judgment.
62 Para. 52 of the Judgement also states an ideal approach is not necessary to be legally sufficient for an Inspector at an Examination in Public, and by extension any planning decision maker:
"Although it seems clear that what I have called an ideal approach has not been explicitly followed on a systematic basis in the instant case, it is a counsel of perfection. Planning Inspectors do not write court judgments. The issue which properly arises is whether the Inspector's more discursive and open-textured approach, which was clearly carried through into the ACS, was legally sufficient.
63 Accordingly the Local Plan is supported. It need not be ideal in all respects. However the selection of the Sow N Grow site is evidence of a sound Plan with regard to housing site allocation and delivery, and green belt boundary changes. This site allocation is supported.
64 It is based on good evidence and the Housing Delivery Test required by the NPPF. It is therefore positively prepared and justified. It is consistent with the NPPF.
65 It should also be effective over the Plan period. The Housing Trajectory is supported. (Appendix 1. Page 309 of the Plan).
66 The Plan appears legally compliant and there appears to have been adequate cooperation with adjoining local planning authorities.
67 Accordingly the Plan is supported. Some minor amendments are suggested above but these are not considered essential. It is left for the Local Plan Examiner to consider and decide.
Alan Wipperman BA MRICS MRTPI C Dip AF 13 March 2019
Appear yes -
Why?

I may wish to appear at the examination in due course to support the plan and comment on other party's responses.

To ensure the policy is positively prepared and justified the following modification is proposed:

"c. i. a minimum of 5 1% self-build homes which can include some custom housebuilding;..."

Policy HP01, Housing Mix (page 124)

Self-build and/or custom build housing is supported by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its contribution can help to diversify a housing offer, thus supporting housing delivery overall (Letwin, October 2018). CEG is committed to the delivery of self and custom build housing at Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). Planning for a variety of housing types, including self and custom build assists in the delivery of housing on large sites. However, the minimum target of 5% set out in criterion A. c. (i) is not justified by an appropriate evidence base.

CEG is aware that the current level of interest on the Council's Self and Custom Build Register is relatively limited and the need for such housing does not, therefore, justify a minimum level of 5% being required. Indeed, if such a level isn't needed setting such a high minimum requirement could effectively prevent land being released for other types of housing which are needed.

In the 12 month period ending in October 2018 it is understood that 47 individuals and no associations were registered with the Council. Of the total number, 9 indicated a preference for village locations across the Borough, which in the future might include DHGV.

It is acknowledged that the Register is relatively new and the need for this type of housing might change over time. Considering this, a lower minimum requirement should be sought, probably at 1%, to support this type of housing at a level proportionate to the likely need. DHGV will provide for 2,700 new homes over the plan period, and 1% of this would amount to 27 self-build homes in total.

Overall CEG considers the 5% is too high and a lower figure should be adopted.

Policy HP03, Residential Density (page 128)

The policy is positively prepared. Taking a design led approach to density should enable development to achieve a net density of at least 35 dph or higher. This approach is consistent with Chapter 11 of the NPPF which seeks to make efficient use of land and optimise the density of development. A modification is proposed to reflect that density across a site should be an average.



Policy HP05, Affordable Housing (page 131 - 132)

CEG supports the approach set out at paragraph 6.35 which explains that the 'need' for 86% social rent and 14% other forms of affordable housing will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate tenure and mix of affordable housing.

This 'need' is then expressed as an 'indicative requirement' in Figure 6.2 and a 'requirement' in Policy HP05(B). The Policy currently requires a specific tenure split (86% social rent and 14% other forms of affordable housing) which may not be appropriate for the life of the Plan or for Strategic Allocations in the Plan. CEG supports the approach set out in paragraph 6.35 to ensure there is an appropriate amount of flexibility, for example, to accommodate changing circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan; and ensure the right mix and balance is created where Strategic Allocations are concerned.

Policy HP19: Conservation and Enhancement of the Historic Environment (page 160)
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

Policy HP20 Listed Buildings (page 161-162)
The Policy is not consistent with the NPPF or statutory requirements as set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 about listed buildings and how proposals that affect them should be assessed. Some modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to address this

Policy HP01 should be provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
---
The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.

Policy
HP01 : Housing Mix
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP01 and its supporting text in order to comply with national policy.
Policy HP01: Housing Mix
3. Paragraph 61 of the NPPF refers to the need for planning policies to reflect assessments of local need including in relation to affordable housing and people wishing to commission or build their own homes:
"61. Within this context, the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people with disabilities, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing to commission or build their own homes1)".
4. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site. 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised2: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)". 6. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to the Council 'seeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community benefits. 7. With regard to 'what accessibility standards can local planning authorities require from new development?' the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states3: 2 Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 23b-002-20190315 3 Paragraph: 008 Reference ID: 56-008-20160519
"Where a local planning authority adopts a policy to provide enhanced accessibility or adaptability they should do so only by reference to Requirement M4(2) and/or M4(3) of the optional requirements in the Building Regulations and should not impose any additional information requirements (for instance provision of furnished layouts) or seek to determine compliance with these requirements, which is the role of the Building Control Body. They should clearly state in their Local Plan what proportion of new dwellings should comply with the requirements. There may be rare instances where an individual's needs are not met by the wheelchair accessible optional requirement - see paragraph 011 below. Local Plan policies should also take into account site specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography, and other circumstances which may make a specific site less suitable for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant dwellings, particularly where step free access cannot be achieved or is not viable. Where step-free access is not viable, neither of the Optional Requirements in Part M should be applied".
8. We consider that the Council has failed to demonstrate that the requirement set out in paragraph A (a)(ii) of the policy for every dwelling built on all residential developments of 10 or more dwellings to be constructed to meet requirement M4(2) accessible and adaptable dwellings, unless they are built in line with M4(3) wheelchair adaptable dwelling standard, is actually justified in terms of either need or viability.
9. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national housing space standards.
10. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation some concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need".
11. Paragraph 6.4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing-mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up-to-date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negotiations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing. Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
12. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is fully committed to ensuring that the housing mix policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a 'one size fits all' approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) and more localised market information, given that different types of housing mixes will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets and recent types of housing provision.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect dispensations from these housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The policy should be amended by the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'seek' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
16. Consequently, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy, as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater flexibility. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither 'justified', nor 'effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the supporting text of Policy HP01:
6.4 The Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) Part 2 (2016) provides a detailed assessment of the housing required to meet existing and future needs across the borough. Proposals should respond to other up-to-date and relevant local evidence where available, such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and more localised market information.
19. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP01:
A. All new development should deliver an inclusive, accessible environment throughout.
a. On residential development proposals of 10 or more (net) additional dwellings the Council will seek:
i. an appropriate mix of dwelling types, sizes and tenures to take account of meet the identified housing needs in the borough as set out in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment or any similar evidence for market and affordable units (such as the Council's Housing Strategy, AMR and localised market information), to provide choice, and contribute towards the creation of sustainable, balanced and inclusive communities; and
b. On developments of 60 or more (net) dwellings the Council will seek the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% of new affordable dwellings should be built to meet requirement M4(3) wheelchair accessible dwellings of the Building
Regulations 2015, or subsequent government standard.
c. On development sites of 500 or more dwellings the Council will seek all of the above, and:
i. a minimum of 5% self-build homes which can include custom housebuilding; and
ii. provision for Specialist Accommodation taking account of local housing need in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy HP04
Specialist Accommodation.
B. Where a development site has been divided into parts, or is being delivered in phases, the area to be used for determining whether this policy applies will be the whole original site.
C. The inclusion of self-build and custom build homes and Specialist Residential Accommodation on smaller sites will also be encouraged.
Policy
H P 05 : Affordable Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks minor amendments to the wording of Policy HP05: Affordable Housing in order to provide greater flexibility.
Policy HP05: Affordable Housing
3. We support the policy's aim of seeking to deliver as much affordable housing as is possible given the local need for it. However, it is important that the Council also gives adequate regard to viability and the overall cost of adhering to all other Local Plan policy and site-based requirements. 4. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) reference to when planning obligations can be sought by the local planning authority has very recently been revised1: "Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of unacceptable development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 56)".
5. We consider that in accordance with the PPG, the policy wording should refer to
the Council 's eeking' rather than 'requiring' the provision of different community
benefits.
6. Consequently, we do not believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph A. that the Council will require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
7. Neither do we believe that it is appropriate to state in paragraph B.(a) that the Council will require that the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (including starter homes, intermediate homes, shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing). It is not evident from reading the content of the Pba Strategic Housing Market Assessment - Part 1 (October 2018) what the precise justification for these tenure split figures is. Nor is it evident whether they have been properly scrutinised with regard to viability.
8. The policy goes on to specify that 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square metres.
9. We believe that the current policy wording set out in paragraphs A and B is too inflexible and fails to take adequate account of both viability and the fact that affordable housing requirements will inevitably change over the course of the Plan period as different products emerge and rates of affordable housing need change.
10. We note also that paragraph G. states that the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all residential development falling under use class C3 with the exception of Gypsy & Traveller Pitches or Travelling Showman Plots. This is contrary to national policy as set out in the NPPF.
11. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer). To support the re-use of brownfield land, where vacant buildings are being reused or redeveloped, any affordable housing contribution due should be reduced by a proportionate amount.
12. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF specifies that where major development involving the provision of housing is proposed, planning policies and decisions should expect at least 10% of the homes to be available for affordable home ownership. Exemptions to this 10% requirement should also be made where the site or proposed development:
* provides solely for Build to Rent homes;
* provides specialist accommodation for a group of people with specific needs (such as purpose-built accommodation for the elderly or students);
* is proposed to be developed by people who wish to build or commission their own homes; or
* is exclusively for affordable housing, an entry-level exception site or a rural exception site.
Conclusions
13. The policy is overly prescriptive and does not accord with national policy. It fails to adequately reflect exceptions from these affordable housing requirements in respect of specific types of residential development. The policy would benefit by minor amendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
14. The amendments should include the deletion of references to 'require' and their replacement with 'see k' in order to provide greater flexibility and reflect the fact that the policy requirements should not be so rigid that they fail to take adequate account of other competing policy requirements and overall viability.
15. We note that paragraph 6. 4 of the Draft Plan makes it clear that in terms of housing mix proposals, regard should be had to the findings of the latest Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and other relevant up to date local evidence. It explains that this will be used to inform negot iations between the Council and developers to determine the appropriate mix of housing.
Furthermore, it emphasises that the final mix of housing types will be subject to negotiation with the applicant.
16. We believe it to be crucial that the Council is full y committed to ensuring that the affordable housing policy will be implemented in a flexible manner, and not seek to apply a one size fits all approach to all sites across the Borough. Accordingly, regard should be had to the findings of the Authority Moni toring Report (AMR) and more localised information, given that different types of affordable housing provision will be appropriate in different parts of the Borough depending on localised housing markets , and other policy and infrastructure requirements .
Test of Soundness
17. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provid es greater clarity regarding affordable housing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alte rnatives.
Proposed modifications
18. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy HP05:
A. The Council will seek require the provision of 35% of the total number of residential units to be provided and maintained as affordable housing within all new residential development sites on proposals of 11 or more (net) units or sites of 10 or less units which have a combined gross internal floorspace in excess of 1,000 square meters.
B. In considering the suitability of affordable housing, the Council will seek that: the tenure split be made up of 86% Affordable/Social Rent and 14% as other forms of affordable housing (this includes starter homes, intermediate homes and shared ownership and all other forms of affordable housing as described by national guidance or legislation) or regard to the most up to date SHMA, AMR and localised market information; b. the affordable housing be designed in such a way as to be seamlessly integrated to that of market housing elements of a scheme (in terms of appearance, build quality and materials) and distributed throughout the development so as to avoid the over concentration in one area; and c. the type, mix, size and cost of affordable homes will reflect meet the identified housing need as reported by the Council's most up-to-date Strategic Housing Market Assessment, AMR, localised market information and Housing Strategy.
C. In seeking affordable housing provision, the Council will have regard to scheme viability; only where robust viability evidence demonstrates that the full amount of affordable housing cannot be delivered, the Council will negotiate a level of on-site affordable housing that can be delivered taking into account the mix of unit size, type and tenure and any grant subsidy received.
D. The Council will only accept a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision where it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that on-site provision is neither feasible nor viable.
E. Where a site has been sub-divided or is not being developed to its full potential so as to fall under the affordable housing threshold, the Council will seek a level of affordable housing to reflect the provision that would have been achieved on the site as a whole had it come forward as a single scheme for the allocated or identified site.
F. Planning obligations will be used to ensure that the affordable housing will remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled to alternative affordable housing provision.
G. In accordance with national policy, the requirement to provide affordable housing will apply to all qualifying residential development.
Policy
HP06 : S pace Standards for New Housing
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy HP06 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. The national Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that in relation to 'what optional technical housing standards can local planning authorities set?' that local planning authorities have the option to set additional technical requirements exceeding the minimum standards required by Building Regulations in respect of access and water, and an optional nationally described space standard. Local planning authorities will need to gather evidence to determine whether there is a need for additional standards in their area, and justify setting appropriate policies in their Local Plans1.
4. In consideration of 'how should local planning authorities assess viability concerns for setting optional Building Regulation requirements and the nationally described space standard?', the PPG specifies that local planning authorities should consider the impact of using these standards as part of their Local Plan viability assessment. In considering the costs relating to optional Building Regulation requirements or the nationally described space standard, authorities may wish to take account of the evidence in the most recent Impact Assessment issued alongside the Housing Standards Review2.
5. The PPG goes on to state that: "Where a need for internal space standards is identified, local planning authorities should provide justification for requiring internal space policies. Local planning authorities should take account of the following areas: * need - evidence should be provided on the size and type of dwellings currently being built in the area, to ensure the impacts of adopting space standards can be properly assessed, for example, to consider any potential impact on meeting demand for starter homes. * viability - the impact of adopting the space standard should be considered as part of a plan's viability assessment with account taken of the impact of potentially larger dwellings on land supply. Local planning authorities will also need to consider impacts on affordability where a space standard is to be adopted. * timing - there may need to be a reasonable transitional period following adoption of a new policy on space standards to enable developers to factor the cost of space standards into future land acquisitions"3.
Policy HP06: Space Standards for New Housing
6. Table 1: Monitoring Framework: Broad parameters for monitoring policy implementation specifies that in respect of Policy HP06 internal spaces are to be above minimum standards in national space standards. It specifies that the monitoring target is 100% of new homes at or above minimum standards.
7. We note 'Table 8.3: Additional Costs of Building to the draft Approved Document M amendments included at Appendix B4' within the Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identified costs based upon national 2014 prices for category 2 dwellings of up to £940 per dwelling and prices for category 3 dwellings of up to £23,052 per dwelling (these national prices now being 5 years out of date). These were published in March 2015 with the proposed national space standard.
8. We further note the reference on p.102 of the Viability Assessment which states "through the September 2018 consultation s ome concern was expressed about the need for this policy. It is beyond the scope of this study to consider need"
9. Paragraph 8.24 states that in the Viability Study the units are assumed to be in excess of these National Space Standards.
Conclusions
10. The policy is not supported by detailed local evidence to support the imposition of the national space standard. Consequently, the policy would benefit by a mendments which would bring it in line with national policy.
Test of Soundness
11. In view of the above co nsiderations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that it provides greater clarity regarding affordable hous ing provision requirements. Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'posit ively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
12. In the absence of any detailed local evidence to demonstrate the need for setting a local space standard, or evidence that it would be viable for developments of less than 500 dwellings, paragraph A of the policy should be deleted.
Policy
NE13 : Site Allocations in the Green Belt
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
2. The representation seeks amendments to the wording of Policy NE13 in order to comply with national policy.
National Policy
3. When considering the soundness of Policy NE13, it is very important to have careful regard to national policy.
4. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that Planning Obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests1:
a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b) directly related to the development; and
c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5. Paragraph 138 of the NPPF specifies that Plans should set out ways in which the impact of removing land from the Green Belt can be offset through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land.
6. The Framework goes on in paragraph 139 to refer to the importance of meeting identified development needs and being able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the Plan period.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
7. The policy specifies that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site.
8. The supporting text explains that this policy is in place to ensure the cost of losing some Green Belt is repaid through significant benefits to new and existing communities, and to capture the uplift in land value for local benefit. It goes on to state that these benefits are likely to be for different needs depending upon the area, but could involve new community facilities, open space for public use, play areas, and investment in existing facilities. Reference is also made to development needing to contribute to local education and healthcare.
9. We strongly contend that the policy requirements fail to accord with what is required by national planning policy, particularly with regard to the tests for seeking Planning Obligations set out in Paragraph 56 of the NPPF. It would be both inappropriate and unreasonable to expect developers and landowners to make provision to meet the needs of surrounding existing communities, rather than addressing the actual needs that would arise from new development. Such an approach would be unlawful.
10. The Council has recognised in preparing the Local Plan that the huge demand and pressure for development in the Borough provides the exceptional circumstances to alter Green Belt boundaries. Through the plan preparation process, including Sustainability Appraisal, it has recognised that the development of our Client's land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22) would be amongst the least impactful (in terms of Green Belt purposes) and would promote sustainable patterns of development.
11. It is fully evident that the need for chosen sites to then deliver significant community benefits to justify their Green Belt release is not identified in national policy. Furthermore, opportunities for onsite provision of new "significant" community facilities on smaller scale Green Belt releases are limited and any contributions made towards offsite provision should not go beyond the CIL Regulation 122 and 123 tests. Accordingly, we strongly challenge the soundness of this Policy.
12. It is particularly important to note that the Housing Delivery Test 2018 measurement (February 2019) identifies that against an annual target of 655 dwellings, over the past 3 years it has only delivered 1,509 dwellings against a target figure of 1,965 dwellings. As a consequence of only delivering 77% of its housing target figure, the Council's 5-year land supply is now to be subjected to a 20% buffer.
13. It is clear that Brentwood Borough Council are experiencing housing delivery difficulties and as a consequence, it is vital that Brentwood Borough Council does not implement policies which threaten housing delivery due to their high associated costs or the fact that their actual final development costs would be uncertain, particularly given that the meaning of the word 'significant' is open to wide possible interpretation. It should also be noted that the associated costs of such potential provision will not have been properly examined within either the Sustainability Appraisal or Viability Assessment.
Conclusion
14. The policy would benefit by the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
15. We also consider that the policy wording would be clearer by referrin g to sites being removed from the Green Belt, rather than de allocated.
Test of Soundness
16. In view of the above considerations, we consider that the Local Plan is not sound, because it is not fully 'consistent with national policy , as it fails to have direct regard to viability. The Plan needs to be amended so that any community benefits
being sought are legally justified and appropriate . Consequently, in its present shape, it will be neither ' justified', nor ' effective', as it will not represent the most a ppropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Nor has the Local Plan been 'positively prepared'.
Proposed modifications
17. The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.
Policy
R22 : Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
Summary of Representation
1. This representation has been prepared on behalf of CALA Homes (North Home Counties) Ltd in support of the proposed allocation of its land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for 57 homes (Policy R22).
Policy R22: Land adjacent to the A12, Ingatestone
2. We very much welcome the fact that our Client's site has been proposed as a housing allocation in the Pre-Submission Local Plan (Policy R22) with an indicative dwelling yield of 57 dwellings and a delivery forecast of 2021/22 - 2023/24, and the Council has responded positively to representations that we made at the Regulation 18 stage, which sought to increase the capacity to 57 dwellings and for the trajectory to identify this site coming forward early in the plan period.
3. Our previous representations were supported by a number of technical studies which we trust the Council found helpful in supporting its decision to allocate the site. Through the technical work undertaken to date, it has been demonstrated that the site is sustainable; can be well integrated into the existing transport network; is suitable for development in terms of noise and vibration levels; and can be developed in a way that will enhance the ecological value of the site.
4. We have also demonstrated through the design work undertaken that the site is capable of delivering approximately 57 market and affordable homes together with public open space and an area of children's play.
5. We are pleased to note that this design work has been recognised by the Council, and the site is now identified in the Pre-Submission Local Plan as offering an indicative yield of around 57 dwellings of mixed size and type.
6. A planning application is now being prepared and a pre-application meeting will take place in the near future.
Conclusion
7. We wish to reiterate our strong support for the proposed allocation of land adjacent to the A12 Ingatestone site for around 57 homes (Policy R22) and we look forward to continuing discussions with the Council with respect to bringing the site forward for delivery at the earliest opportunity.
Test of Soundness
8. We consider that Policy R22 of the Draft Local Plan is sound, because it has been 'positively prepared' and is consistent with national policy justified' and 'effective'.

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

review the self-build requirements and requests that Draft allocation RO4 and RO5 is revised to remove this requirement based on the threshold set under Draft Policy HP01. At present, it is considered that there is a lack of evidence to justify this policy
position, rendering the PSD unsound on this basis.

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

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".

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 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".

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.