Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan

1. This joint representation is made on behalf of:
1.1.The Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green Parish Council ('the Parish Council');
and
1.2.The Blackmore Village Heritage Association ('BVHA')
Introduction
2. The Parish Council is a statutory consultee and represents 350 households in Blackmore village (population of only 943) included in a total population of 2,561 within the wider Parish with its three distinct separate settlements. This figure does not include the many households in neighbouring villages who rely on Blackmore's facilities.
3. BVHA is an unincorporated, not for profit, organisation and has in excess of 150 active members but its newsletters are distributed to over 1,000 households.
4. Both the Parish Council and BVHA strongly oppose the proposed allocation of Sites R25 (Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore) and R26 (Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore) for housing development. The proposed allocation is for "around 40 new homes" at R25 and for "around 30 new homes" at R26.
5. They say that the proposed allocations R25 and R26 are contrary to both National and Local Policies.

6. In simple terms the Parish Council's and BVHA's case is as follows:
6.1.Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing need cannot be met on existing previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites.
6.2.Without prejudice to the above contention, if no previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites exist, that Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate there are no or insufficient previously developed sites available outside the existing urban areas.
6.3.In any event, there are greenfield sites available (for example adjoining existing urban areas) in preferable and more sustainable locations.
6.4.Moreover, R25 and R26 are inherently unsuitable developments because of (1) inadequate access, (2) flooding, (3) it will result in disproportionate increase in the housing stock, and, (4) the development would not be sustainable.
7. The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the proposed allocation of Blackmore as a Category 3 settlement within the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy (see pages 21-25 of the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan).
8. Accordingly, the Parish Council and BVHA submit that the Local Plan, with proposed allocations R25 and R26 and the allocation of Blackmore as a "larger village", is unsound in that it has not been positively prepared, is not justified, is not effective nor consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019 edition)('the NPPF').
Background
9. Blackmore is currently a village of approximately 350 dwellings which are home to 943 people (according to the Electoral Register). The proposal to add "around 70 homes" will add approximately 25% to the existing village housing stock. The proportionate increase to the village population would likely be greater by virtue of the number of current dwellings being occupied by two or less villagers. Outside of the LDP, housing stock is also increasing through normal planning processes both within Brentwood Borough Council and our neighbouring Epping Forest Council which will impact upon Blackmore village.
10.Blackmore is a picturesque village and surrounded by countryside. The Village Green has ponds at its eastern end. There is a village shop including post office, Primary School, two village halls, a sports and social club, tennis courts, football and cricket pitches, and a flood-lit Multi-Use Games Arena. All of these facilities are at capacity use. The village has three pubs: The Prince Albert, The Bull, and The Leather Bottle. In addition to the Anglican parish Church there is a Baptist Church in the village. However, Blackmore has a very limited bus service and is thus remote. It is over 6 miles from the centre of Brentwood and thus the villagers of Blackmore are reliant on the motor car.
11.The village School is at capacity and local residents are having to send children to neighbouring schools. There is limited scope for expansion. It is socially undesirable for some village children to be able to attend the village school and others to be "shipped out". This social harm (i.e. lack of cohesion) would be exacerbated if more resident village children had to be "shipped out" to another school.
12.In respect of employment opportunities within Blackmore these are limited and, of those of working age nearly all, if not all, commute out of the village. That commute takes place, if not exclusively, almost exclusively by private motor car. Such further evidences that Blackmore is an unsustainable location for new development.
13.Both R25 and R26 are on the Northern Boundary of the village of Blackmore. Both are bordered (to the north) by Redrose Lane, a rare extant example of a "plague detour route". Redrose Lane is narrow and with limited passing space for two motor cars. Vehicles larger than a car (i.e. Transit van and above) cannot pass without one, or the other, stopping (see Appendix One). Development of 70 dwellings would undoubtedly result in a significant number of vehicular movements - in the order of 600 to 700 per day - and, without suitable improvements (which would erode the character of Redrose Lane), cause harm.
14.Both R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. Both are on land classified as "very good" agricultural land. Both sites have ecological value and, more importantly, local residents have reported sightings of bats, owls and newts at, or in the vicinity of, R25 and R26 (See Appendix Two).
15.Whilst the Environmental Agency classifies both sites within Flood Zone 1, both R25 and R26 have flooded historically - and both have an identified flood risk (see Appendix Three).
16.The BVHA undertook a survey in July 2018 of local residents and visitors to the Village. The BVHA survey confirms that residents are opposed to the proposed allocation of R25 and R26. Of the responses received from village residents, over
300, 98% were strongly opposed to the allocation of sites R25 and R26. It should be noted that the response numbers (over 300 adult residents in the village) was extremely good and evidences the strength of local feeling. It also outlines the engagement of the local Community.
Issues concerning Consultation and Consistency
17.It is a maxim that "good planning is consistent planning".
18.The Current Local Plan (the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan) dates to 2005 and tightly controls development in the Green Belt. Thus, development on R25 and R26 is contrary to the current Local Plan policies absent "very special circumstances".
19.In a 2014 site assessment document, which was and is part of the current emerging local plan process, sites R25 and R26 were discounted as they did not meet the (then) draft Local Plan spatial strategy.
20.It is not clear why this assessment has changed - indeed, the constraints surrounding site R25 and R26 remain unchanged.
21.More recently, in the Council's (Regulation 18) 2016 draft Local Plan, it was stated that "No amendment is proposed to the Green Belt boundaries surrounding larger villages [Blackmore is defined as a larger village] in order to retain the character of the Borough in line with the spatial strategy" (para 5.33). That spatial strategy seeking, insofar as it was necessary to do so, "limited release of Green Belt land for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self- sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries". So even though Brentwood Borough Council had identified a potential need for release of Green Belt land, no suitable land was identified in Blackmore.
22.There has therefore been a significant shift of policy; namely from a position of no development at R25 and R26 to now seeking to allocate these sites for residential development. The Parish Council and BVHA say that the change in position is inconsistent and wrong for reasons more fully set out below.
23.The Parish Council and BVHA also wish to record that the Council's planning Team, represented by a Strategic Director and three other Senior Officers, confirmed at a public meeting on 31 January 2019 that Blackmore's allocation was a result of property developers promoting the development of land on which their companies held options. The Parish Council and BVHA take the view that, not only would the proposed allocation of R25 and R26 appear to be "developer-led" rather than plan- led, it shows a lack of thorough and appropriate research, and understanding of the unique character and circumstances of Blackmore. The Parish Council and BVHA further take the view that developer pressure is not a good and sufficient reason for Brentwood Borough Council to abdicate its duty to promote a sound, and consistent, Development Plan.
Evidence Base
24.Paragraph 31 NPPF provides that the preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.
25.Part of the evidence is the "Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report - January 2019" ('the SA'). The SA tells us that a number of sustainability 'topics' inform the framework for assessing the sustainability of the site. Flooding is one of those topics (see Table 3.1 of the SA).
26.Risk of flooding is important to any sustainability appraisal not only because the NPPF and emerging policy NE06 seek to direct development away from areas of highest risk of flooding but also because flooding can put lives and property at risk. It is therefore surprising that, for all bar 21 potential sites, the SA does not consider flood risk in assessing sustainability.
27.The Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment does assess risk however and identifies a medium risk of surface water flooding for Redrose Lane (Table A4b) with Site R26 being potentially vulnerable to climate change and with a 1 in 100 annual probability of surface water flooding (Table A6b). The findings appear at odds with the fact that Sites R25 and R26 are lower than Redrose Lane and thus, one may expect, may be more vulnerable to flooding than higher land (i.e. Redrose Lane). Indeed, these sites have consistently flooded as evidenced by the photographs in Appendix Two.
28.There are, of course, documents supporting housing need. However, there is no evidence of local housing need for Blackmore, or any other villages. Whilst the Parish Council and BVHA accept that there may be some demand for housing any such demand should be properly evidenced with any housing allocation proportionate and ensuring that houses are being built in the right places.
Sustainable Development
29.It is a core planning principle that plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (para 16(a) NPPF). Paragraph 8 NPPF outlines three objectives that the planning system should strive to meet.
30.The proposed allocation of sites R25 and R26 meets none of these objectives in that: 30.1. Economic objective - any contribution arising from the construction of new dwellings will be short-lived. There are no, or extremely limited, employment opportunities within Blackmore and the likelihood of new residents driving a demand for new services within the village would appear, at best, limited. In
short, any economic benefits are short-term.
30.2. Social objective - services in Blackmore are limited and the primary school
is at capacity sending additional village children to school elsewhere will further
erode social cohesion.
30.3. Environmental objective - occupiers of sites R25 and R26 would
undoubtedly be reliant on private motor cars. The sites are at risk of flooding (surface water at least) and require the release of high-grade agricultural land in the Green Belt. Redrose Lane is narrow and infrastructure works would be required to make necessary improvements which would harm the character of this area but may also result in the loss of historic hedges and important habitats.
31.There are other sites which are in far more sustainable locations which should be allocated in preference. Indeed, the SA identifies a number of sites (n.b. no scoring for flood risk) with better scores than sites R25 and R26, good examples being in Shenfield, Mountnessing, Pilgrims Hatch, Ingatestone and Brentwood such as, but not limited to, sites 038A, 253, 277B, 297, 218B, 053B, 189, 318, 288B, 153, 280, 024A and 130.
32.Furthermore, development in less sustainable locations, such as R25 and R26, before more sustainable locations, should be avoided.
Green Belt
33.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts (per para 133 NPPF). The Green Belt serves five purposes (para 134
NPPF) which includes safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the character of historic towns and assisting in urban regeneration.
34.The NPPF further confirms that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified (para 136 NPPF). Meeting an assessed housing need is not an exceptional circumstance. No other exceptional circumstances are put forward by Brentwood Borough Council.
35. Regardless, the NPPF is clear in that before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changing Green Belt boundaries Brentwood Borough Council should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified housing need (para 137 NPPF). In this respect the Parish Council and BVHA say:
35.1. There is no evidence that increasing densities elsewhere negates the need for the release of Green Belt land at sites R25 and R26. It should be remembered that the proposed Green Belt release, per Figure 4.2, only 123 of those homes are to be provided in the "larger villages" such as Blackmore which accounts for 1.5% of the total housing need (which includes a 20% buffer). This is a very modest contribution to housing supply which, the Parish Council and BVHA say, could easily be met by considering all other reasonable alternatives.
35.2. There are brownfield sites which should be identified, considered and used in preference.
35.3. There are also urban sites that should be used in preference, or alternatively, sites in more sustainable locations (i.e. close(r) to urban areas).
35.4. The village of Stondon Massey has actively sought new development within its boundaries. The same may be true of other villages within the Borough. Such "localised" development may reduce or negate the need for sites R25 and/or R26.
36.In consequence of the above, the Parish Council and BVHA say that Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it fully evidenced and justified a need to alter Green Belt boundaries nor that it has examined fully all other reasonable alternatives before doing so.
37.Further to the above, the notes to draft policy SP02 confirm that growth is prioritised "based on brownfield land and land in urban areas first; and only then brownfield land in Green Belt areas where deemed appropriate" (para 4.22). The inclusion of R25 and R26 runs contrary to this - both being greenfield land in the Green Belt.
Whilst SP02 itself talks of the need to direct development to "highly accessible locations" - sites R25 and R26 are in a rural area with poor transport links and limited accessibility. The inclusion of R25 and R26 thus conflicts with policy SP02.
A Settlement Category 3 village?
38.As above the Parish Council and BVHA say that Blackmore should be classed as a Settlement Category 4 village and not the higher Category 3. They say this because: 38.1. There is no local shopping parade but, instead, one Co-Op Store (with Post
Office), a hairdressers and a coffee shop;
38.2. It does not have a health facility - the nearest Doctor's surgery is in
Doddinghurst (which is ~3 miles away and on roads not suitable for walking);
And 38.3. There are no, or very few, local jobs. Of those of working age nearly all
commute out of the village.
39. Accordingly, some of the key attributes of a Category 3 settlement are, in Blackmore's case, missing. As a more general point the population of Blackmore is modest and a considerable margin less than that of Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch which are also classified as Category 3 settlements.
40.Further, of the Category 3 settlements it is only Blackmore (sites R25 and R26) and Kelvedon Hatch (sites R23 and R24) that it is proposed to allocate sites for housing/development. Kelvedon Hatch is in the order of 2.5 times larger (by population) than Blackmore - however its proposed housing allocation (total of ~53) is less, by approximately 25%, than that proposed for Blackmore.
41.This is in contrast to the larger Category 3 settlements of Doddinghurst and Ingrave which have no proposed allocation for housing. Indeed, no allocation is proposed for the other Category 3 settlements of Herongate and Mountnessing.
42.Simply put, the Parish Council and BVHA say that the classification of, and proposed housing allocation in, Blackmore is incorrect.
Other
43.The Parish Council and BVHA support the strategy within the plan. Indeed, in the main they recognise and support the policies within the draft plan. However, they take issue with allocations of sites R25 and R26; not only for the reasons above but when considered against the policy which Brentwood Borough Council are promoting. For example, sites R25 and R26 perform poorly against, or conflict with, draft policies SP01, SP02, SP03, NE01, NE09, BE12, BE13 and BE45. This is not withstanding the case that, in applying the NPPF, the Parish Council and BVHA say that development should be directed elsewhere in preference to sites R25 an R26.
44.The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the fact that of the 123 net homes allocated for "larger villages" 70, or approximately 56% of the total allocation, are met by these two sites. Thus, a disproportionately large amount of the allocation is from sites R25 and R26.
45.The above is notwithstanding the Parish Council and BVHA's primary contention that sites R25 and R26, but possibly all proposed sites on Green Belt Land in larger villages (i.e. settlement category 3), can and should be removed from the Plan.
46.The evidence of working with adjoining planning authorities is limited with a general statement that "adjacent planning authorities [have] confirmed that they [are] unwilling and unable to take any of the Brentwood identified housing need". The Parish Council and BVHA invite Brentwood Borough Council to more fully disclose the extent and nature of discussions that have been held with neighbouring authorities.
Summary/Conclusion
47.The Parish Council and BVHA represent the residents of Blackmore village - an overwhelming majority of whom are opposed to the inclusion of sites R25 and R26.
48.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying their removal from the Green Belt. There is no evidence to demonstrate that all other reasonable alternatives have been explored - those alternatives including increasing densities or brownfield land and land in more urban/sustainable locations. The removal of sites R25 and R26 from the Green Belt is contrary to both local and national planning policies.
49.Development on R25 and R26 has historically been discounted, most recently as 2016. There is no change in local circumstances justifying development on sites R25 and R26 now.
50.Sites R25 and R26 are in an unsustainable location served by a constrained access (Redrose Lane) and with an identified risk of flooding. The development of R25 and R26 does not represent sustainable development.
51.The restricted access that Redrose Lane affords is inconsistent with Brentwood Borough Council's removal of Honey Pot Lane from the LDP on grounds of restricted access. At the Extraordinary Brentwood Council Meeting of 8th November a site known as Honeypot Lane, included in the Plan since inception, was withdrawn. This allocation, designed to include social and low-cost housing within 500m of the Town Centre, was removed due the narrowness of a small section of the road access that created a 'pinch-point', despite being bordered by open land providing opportunity for road widening. Unlike the continuously narrow and unpaved Redrose Lane, Honeypot Lane enjoys a double-width carriageway for all but a short section and is split between 20mph and 30mphs limits. Redrose Lane, where the national speed limit applies, is posted with weight restriction warning; whereas Honeypot Lane is not.
52.There is no evidence of a need for housing in the village of Blackmore. If there is a need then it has not been quantified by reference to number of type/size of property. Regardless, the proposed allocation accounts for a disproportionately large amount of development in "larger villages" within the Borough (i.e. >50% of the proposed Green Belt release in larger villages comes from Blackmore alone).
53.The plan is not sound with the inclusion of sites R25 and R26. The inclusion of sites R25 and R26 cannot be justified owing to the absence of proportionate evidence and a failure to assess all reasonable alternatives. The inclusion of these sites is contrary to national policy, particularly with regards to sustainable development and Green Belt land policies within the NPPF.
54.The Parish Council and BVHA believe that the change in approach, i.e. in seeking to allocate R25 and R26 now, is a result of developer pressure rather than a true assessment of the planning merit (or lack of) of sites R25 and R26 for residential development.
55.Brentwood Borough Council should amend the plan to retain R25 and R26 as Green Belt and not allocate them for housing.
HOLMES & HILLS LLP Dated 18 March 2019
Appendix 1: Photos of Redrose Lane with reference to size of Lane.
Appendix 2: Appendix Two - re R25 and R26 as Important Habitat sites
Blackmore Wildlife
The wildlife listed below has all been observed in the fields by Woollard Way and Orchard Piece and these fields provide invaluable nesting and foraging grounds.
Birds:
Redpoll, Yellowhammer, Skylarks, Barn Owls, Little Owls, Buzzard, Red Kite, Sparrowhawk, Song Thrush, Red-legged Partridges, Kestrels, Turtle Doves, Hedge sparrow, Siskin.
In particular Barn Owls and their nesting sites are protected by law during the breeding season - https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/ringing/taking-part/protected-birds/s1- list
Turtle doves, Skylarks and Yellow Hammers are on the RSPB's red list which means,
amongst other things, that the species is globally threatened and are the highest priority for conservation - https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/uk- conservation-status-explained/

Reptiles:
Grass Snakes and Great Crested Newts which are a protected species -
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/amphibians/great-crested-newt
Photos of Owl; Sparrowhawk; reptile: newt; Bats:
All bats are protected by the law in the UK - https://www.bats.org.uk/advice/bats-and- the-law

They are frequently seen flying around the fields (i.e. R25 and R26) and there is possible nesting in the outbuildings.
Bats - video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Be5ZUlvRwEDhh_ivlLf1fxb0Rf2QS3z/view
Appendix 3: Agricultural Lan Assessment and Flooding/Flood Risk mapping.
Photographs of Chelmsford Road and Redrose Lane Flooding 1987; 2016.
Flooding on The Green 2016; Flooding on Redrose Lane 2016 ((note depth of water). Redrose Lane 2018.

Extract from Daily Telegraph re: 2011 flooding.

Extract from Express re 2011 Flooding:
A woman is rescued from her car stuck in floodwater in Blackmore,
Essex, yesterday
Express - 18 Jan 2011
Fire Service in Redrose Lane east bound to Chelmsford Road.

Extract from Romford recorder RE: 2011 flooding

Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan

1. This joint representation is made on behalf of:
1.1.The Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green Parish Council ('the Parish Council');
and
1.2.The Blackmore Village Heritage Association ('BVHA')
Introduction
2. The Parish Council is a statutory consultee and represents 350 households in Blackmore village (population of only 943) included in a total population of 2,561 within the wider Parish with its three distinct separate settlements. This figure does not include the many households in neighbouring villages who rely on Blackmore's facilities.
3. BVHA is an unincorporated, not for profit, organisation and has in excess of 150 active members but its newsletters are distributed to over 1,000 households.
4. Both the Parish Council and BVHA strongly oppose the proposed allocation of Sites R25 (Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore) and R26 (Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore) for housing development. The proposed allocation is for "around 40 new homes" at R25 and for "around 30 new homes" at R26.
5. They say that the proposed allocations R25 and R26 are contrary to both National and Local Policies.

6. In simple terms the Parish Council's and BVHA's case is as follows:
6.1.Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing need cannot be met on existing previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites.
6.2.Without prejudice to the above contention, if no previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites exist, that Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate there are no or insufficient previously developed sites available outside the existing urban areas.
6.3.In any event, there are greenfield sites available (for example adjoining existing urban areas) in preferable and more sustainable locations.
6.4.Moreover, R25 and R26 are inherently unsuitable developments because of (1) inadequate access, (2) flooding, (3) it will result in disproportionate increase in the housing stock, and, (4) the development would not be sustainable.
7. The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the proposed allocation of Blackmore as a Category 3 settlement within the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy (see pages 21-25 of the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan).
8. Accordingly, the Parish Council and BVHA submit that the Local Plan, with proposed allocations R25 and R26 and the allocation of Blackmore as a "larger village", is unsound in that it has not been positively prepared, is not justified, is not effective nor consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019 edition)('the NPPF').
Background
9. Blackmore is currently a village of approximately 350 dwellings which are home to 943 people (according to the Electoral Register). The proposal to add "around 70 homes" will add approximately 25% to the existing village housing stock. The proportionate increase to the village population would likely be greater by virtue of the number of current dwellings being occupied by two or less villagers. Outside of the LDP, housing stock is also increasing through normal planning processes both within Brentwood Borough Council and our neighbouring Epping Forest Council which will impact upon Blackmore village.
10.Blackmore is a picturesque village and surrounded by countryside. The Village Green has ponds at its eastern end. There is a village shop including post office, Primary School, two village halls, a sports and social club, tennis courts, football and cricket pitches, and a flood-lit Multi-Use Games Arena. All of these facilities are at capacity use. The village has three pubs: The Prince Albert, The Bull, and The Leather Bottle. In addition to the Anglican parish Church there is a Baptist Church in the village. However, Blackmore has a very limited bus service and is thus remote. It is over 6 miles from the centre of Brentwood and thus the villagers of Blackmore are reliant on the motor car.
11.The village School is at capacity and local residents are having to send children to neighbouring schools. There is limited scope for expansion. It is socially undesirable for some village children to be able to attend the village school and others to be "shipped out". This social harm (i.e. lack of cohesion) would be exacerbated if more resident village children had to be "shipped out" to another school.
12.In respect of employment opportunities within Blackmore these are limited and, of those of working age nearly all, if not all, commute out of the village. That commute takes place, if not exclusively, almost exclusively by private motor car. Such further evidences that Blackmore is an unsustainable location for new development.
13.Both R25 and R26 are on the Northern Boundary of the village of Blackmore. Both are bordered (to the north) by Redrose Lane, a rare extant example of a "plague detour route". Redrose Lane is narrow and with limited passing space for two motor cars. Vehicles larger than a car (i.e. Transit van and above) cannot pass without one, or the other, stopping (see Appendix One). Development of 70 dwellings would undoubtedly result in a significant number of vehicular movements - in the order of 600 to 700 per day - and, without suitable improvements (which would erode the character of Redrose Lane), cause harm.
14.Both R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. Both are on land classified as "very good" agricultural land. Both sites have ecological value and, more importantly, local residents have reported sightings of bats, owls and newts at, or in the vicinity of, R25 and R26 (See Appendix Two).
15.Whilst the Environmental Agency classifies both sites within Flood Zone 1, both R25 and R26 have flooded historically - and both have an identified flood risk (see Appendix Three).
16.The BVHA undertook a survey in July 2018 of local residents and visitors to the Village. The BVHA survey confirms that residents are opposed to the proposed allocation of R25 and R26. Of the responses received from village residents, over
300, 98% were strongly opposed to the allocation of sites R25 and R26. It should be noted that the response numbers (over 300 adult residents in the village) was extremely good and evidences the strength of local feeling. It also outlines the engagement of the local Community.
Issues concerning Consultation and Consistency
17.It is a maxim that "good planning is consistent planning".
18.The Current Local Plan (the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan) dates to 2005 and tightly controls development in the Green Belt. Thus, development on R25 and R26 is contrary to the current Local Plan policies absent "very special circumstances".
19.In a 2014 site assessment document, which was and is part of the current emerging local plan process, sites R25 and R26 were discounted as they did not meet the (then) draft Local Plan spatial strategy.
20.It is not clear why this assessment has changed - indeed, the constraints surrounding site R25 and R26 remain unchanged.
21.More recently, in the Council's (Regulation 18) 2016 draft Local Plan, it was stated that "No amendment is proposed to the Green Belt boundaries surrounding larger villages [Blackmore is defined as a larger village] in order to retain the character of the Borough in line with the spatial strategy" (para 5.33). That spatial strategy seeking, insofar as it was necessary to do so, "limited release of Green Belt land for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self- sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries". So even though Brentwood Borough Council had identified a potential need for release of Green Belt land, no suitable land was identified in Blackmore.
22.There has therefore been a significant shift of policy; namely from a position of no development at R25 and R26 to now seeking to allocate these sites for residential development. The Parish Council and BVHA say that the change in position is inconsistent and wrong for reasons more fully set out below.
23.The Parish Council and BVHA also wish to record that the Council's planning Team, represented by a Strategic Director and three other Senior Officers, confirmed at a public meeting on 31 January 2019 that Blackmore's allocation was a result of property developers promoting the development of land on which their companies held options. The Parish Council and BVHA take the view that, not only would the proposed allocation of R25 and R26 appear to be "developer-led" rather than plan- led, it shows a lack of thorough and appropriate research, and understanding of the unique character and circumstances of Blackmore. The Parish Council and BVHA further take the view that developer pressure is not a good and sufficient reason for Brentwood Borough Council to abdicate its duty to promote a sound, and consistent, Development Plan.
Evidence Base
24.Paragraph 31 NPPF provides that the preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.
25.Part of the evidence is the "Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report - January 2019" ('the SA'). The SA tells us that a number of sustainability 'topics' inform the framework for assessing the sustainability of the site. Flooding is one of those topics (see Table 3.1 of the SA).
26.Risk of flooding is important to any sustainability appraisal not only because the NPPF and emerging policy NE06 seek to direct development away from areas of highest risk of flooding but also because flooding can put lives and property at risk. It is therefore surprising that, for all bar 21 potential sites, the SA does not consider flood risk in assessing sustainability.
27.The Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment does assess risk however and identifies a medium risk of surface water flooding for Redrose Lane (Table A4b) with Site R26 being potentially vulnerable to climate change and with a 1 in 100 annual probability of surface water flooding (Table A6b). The findings appear at odds with the fact that Sites R25 and R26 are lower than Redrose Lane and thus, one may expect, may be more vulnerable to flooding than higher land (i.e. Redrose Lane). Indeed, these sites have consistently flooded as evidenced by the photographs in Appendix Two.
28.There are, of course, documents supporting housing need. However, there is no evidence of local housing need for Blackmore, or any other villages. Whilst the Parish Council and BVHA accept that there may be some demand for housing any such demand should be properly evidenced with any housing allocation proportionate and ensuring that houses are being built in the right places.
Sustainable Development
29.It is a core planning principle that plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (para 16(a) NPPF). Paragraph 8 NPPF outlines three objectives that the planning system should strive to meet.
30.The proposed allocation of sites R25 and R26 meets none of these objectives in that: 30.1. Economic objective - any contribution arising from the construction of new dwellings will be short-lived. There are no, or extremely limited, employment opportunities within Blackmore and the likelihood of new residents driving a demand for new services within the village would appear, at best, limited. In
short, any economic benefits are short-term.
30.2. Social objective - services in Blackmore are limited and the primary school
is at capacity sending additional village children to school elsewhere will further
erode social cohesion.
30.3. Environmental objective - occupiers of sites R25 and R26 would
undoubtedly be reliant on private motor cars. The sites are at risk of flooding (surface water at least) and require the release of high-grade agricultural land in the Green Belt. Redrose Lane is narrow and infrastructure works would be required to make necessary improvements which would harm the character of this area but may also result in the loss of historic hedges and important habitats.
31.There are other sites which are in far more sustainable locations which should be allocated in preference. Indeed, the SA identifies a number of sites (n.b. no scoring for flood risk) with better scores than sites R25 and R26, good examples being in Shenfield, Mountnessing, Pilgrims Hatch, Ingatestone and Brentwood such as, but not limited to, sites 038A, 253, 277B, 297, 218B, 053B, 189, 318, 288B, 153, 280, 024A and 130.
32.Furthermore, development in less sustainable locations, such as R25 and R26, before more sustainable locations, should be avoided.
Green Belt
33.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts (per para 133 NPPF). The Green Belt serves five purposes (para 134
NPPF) which includes safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the character of historic towns and assisting in urban regeneration.
34.The NPPF further confirms that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified (para 136 NPPF). Meeting an assessed housing need is not an exceptional circumstance. No other exceptional circumstances are put forward by Brentwood Borough Council.
35. Regardless, the NPPF is clear in that before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changing Green Belt boundaries Brentwood Borough Council should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified housing need (para 137 NPPF). In this respect the Parish Council and BVHA say:
35.1. There is no evidence that increasing densities elsewhere negates the need for the release of Green Belt land at sites R25 and R26. It should be remembered that the proposed Green Belt release, per Figure 4.2, only 123 of those homes are to be provided in the "larger villages" such as Blackmore which accounts for 1.5% of the total housing need (which includes a 20% buffer). This is a very modest contribution to housing supply which, the Parish Council and BVHA say, could easily be met by considering all other reasonable alternatives.
35.2. There are brownfield sites which should be identified, considered and used in preference.
35.3. There are also urban sites that should be used in preference, or alternatively, sites in more sustainable locations (i.e. close(r) to urban areas).
35.4. The village of Stondon Massey has actively sought new development within its boundaries. The same may be true of other villages within the Borough. Such "localised" development may reduce or negate the need for sites R25 and/or R26.
36.In consequence of the above, the Parish Council and BVHA say that Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it fully evidenced and justified a need to alter Green Belt boundaries nor that it has examined fully all other reasonable alternatives before doing so.
37.Further to the above, the notes to draft policy SP02 confirm that growth is prioritised "based on brownfield land and land in urban areas first; and only then brownfield land in Green Belt areas where deemed appropriate" (para 4.22). The inclusion of R25 and R26 runs contrary to this - both being greenfield land in the Green Belt.
Whilst SP02 itself talks of the need to direct development to "highly accessible locations" - sites R25 and R26 are in a rural area with poor transport links and limited accessibility. The inclusion of R25 and R26 thus conflicts with policy SP02.
A Settlement Category 3 village?
38.As above the Parish Council and BVHA say that Blackmore should be classed as a Settlement Category 4 village and not the higher Category 3. They say this because: 38.1. There is no local shopping parade but, instead, one Co-Op Store (with Post
Office), a hairdressers and a coffee shop;
38.2. It does not have a health facility - the nearest Doctor's surgery is in
Doddinghurst (which is ~3 miles away and on roads not suitable for walking);
And 38.3. There are no, or very few, local jobs. Of those of working age nearly all
commute out of the village.
39. Accordingly, some of the key attributes of a Category 3 settlement are, in Blackmore's case, missing. As a more general point the population of Blackmore is modest and a considerable margin less than that of Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch which are also classified as Category 3 settlements.
40.Further, of the Category 3 settlements it is only Blackmore (sites R25 and R26) and Kelvedon Hatch (sites R23 and R24) that it is proposed to allocate sites for housing/development. Kelvedon Hatch is in the order of 2.5 times larger (by population) than Blackmore - however its proposed housing allocation (total of ~53) is less, by approximately 25%, than that proposed for Blackmore.
41.This is in contrast to the larger Category 3 settlements of Doddinghurst and Ingrave which have no proposed allocation for housing. Indeed, no allocation is proposed for the other Category 3 settlements of Herongate and Mountnessing.
42.Simply put, the Parish Council and BVHA say that the classification of, and proposed housing allocation in, Blackmore is incorrect.
Other
43.The Parish Council and BVHA support the strategy within the plan. Indeed, in the main they recognise and support the policies within the draft plan. However, they take issue with allocations of sites R25 and R26; not only for the reasons above but when considered against the policy which Brentwood Borough Council are promoting. For example, sites R25 and R26 perform poorly against, or conflict with, draft policies SP01, SP02, SP03, NE01, NE09, BE12, BE13 and BE45. This is not withstanding the case that, in applying the NPPF, the Parish Council and BVHA say that development should be directed elsewhere in preference to sites R25 an R26.
44.The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the fact that of the 123 net homes allocated for "larger villages" 70, or approximately 56% of the total allocation, are met by these two sites. Thus, a disproportionately large amount of the allocation is from sites R25 and R26.
45.The above is notwithstanding the Parish Council and BVHA's primary contention that sites R25 and R26, but possibly all proposed sites on Green Belt Land in larger villages (i.e. settlement category 3), can and should be removed from the Plan.
46.The evidence of working with adjoining planning authorities is limited with a general statement that "adjacent planning authorities [have] confirmed that they [are] unwilling and unable to take any of the Brentwood identified housing need". The Parish Council and BVHA invite Brentwood Borough Council to more fully disclose the extent and nature of discussions that have been held with neighbouring authorities.
Summary/Conclusion
47.The Parish Council and BVHA represent the residents of Blackmore village - an overwhelming majority of whom are opposed to the inclusion of sites R25 and R26.
48.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying their removal from the Green Belt. There is no evidence to demonstrate that all other reasonable alternatives have been explored - those alternatives including increasing densities or brownfield land and land in more urban/sustainable locations. The removal of sites R25 and R26 from the Green Belt is contrary to both local and national planning policies.
49.Development on R25 and R26 has historically been discounted, most recently as 2016. There is no change in local circumstances justifying development on sites R25 and R26 now.
50.Sites R25 and R26 are in an unsustainable location served by a constrained access (Redrose Lane) and with an identified risk of flooding. The development of R25 and R26 does not represent sustainable development.
51.The restricted access that Redrose Lane affords is inconsistent with Brentwood Borough Council's removal of Honey Pot Lane from the LDP on grounds of restricted access. At the Extraordinary Brentwood Council Meeting of 8th November a site known as Honeypot Lane, included in the Plan since inception, was withdrawn. This allocation, designed to include social and low-cost housing within 500m of the Town Centre, was removed due the narrowness of a small section of the road access that created a 'pinch-point', despite being bordered by open land providing opportunity for road widening. Unlike the continuously narrow and unpaved Redrose Lane, Honeypot Lane enjoys a double-width carriageway for all but a short section and is split between 20mph and 30mphs limits. Redrose Lane, where the national speed limit applies, is posted with weight restriction warning; whereas Honeypot Lane is not.
52.There is no evidence of a need for housing in the village of Blackmore. If there is a need then it has not been quantified by reference to number of type/size of property. Regardless, the proposed allocation accounts for a disproportionately large amount of development in "larger villages" within the Borough (i.e. >50% of the proposed Green Belt release in larger villages comes from Blackmore alone).
53.The plan is not sound with the inclusion of sites R25 and R26. The inclusion of sites R25 and R26 cannot be justified owing to the absence of proportionate evidence and a failure to assess all reasonable alternatives. The inclusion of these sites is contrary to national policy, particularly with regards to sustainable development and Green Belt land policies within the NPPF.
54.The Parish Council and BVHA believe that the change in approach, i.e. in seeking to allocate R25 and R26 now, is a result of developer pressure rather than a true assessment of the planning merit (or lack of) of sites R25 and R26 for residential development.
55.Brentwood Borough Council should amend the plan to retain R25 and R26 as Green Belt and not allocate them for housing.
HOLMES & HILLS LLP Dated 18 March 2019
Appendix 1: Photos of Redrose Lane with reference to size of Lane.
Appendix 2: Appendix Two - re R25 and R26 as Important Habitat sites
Blackmore Wildlife
The wildlife listed below has all been observed in the fields by Woollard Way and Orchard Piece and these fields provide invaluable nesting and foraging grounds.
Birds:
Redpoll, Yellowhammer, Skylarks, Barn Owls, Little Owls, Buzzard, Red Kite, Sparrowhawk, Song Thrush, Red-legged Partridges, Kestrels, Turtle Doves, Hedge sparrow, Siskin.
In particular Barn Owls and their nesting sites are protected by law during the breeding season - https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/ringing/taking-part/protected-birds/s1- list
Turtle doves, Skylarks and Yellow Hammers are on the RSPB's red list which means,
amongst other things, that the species is globally threatened and are the highest priority for conservation - https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/uk- conservation-status-explained/

Reptiles:
Grass Snakes and Great Crested Newts which are a protected species -
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/amphibians/great-crested-newt
Photos of Owl; Sparrowhawk; reptile: newt; Bats:
All bats are protected by the law in the UK - https://www.bats.org.uk/advice/bats-and- the-law

They are frequently seen flying around the fields (i.e. R25 and R26) and there is possible nesting in the outbuildings.
Bats - video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Be5ZUlvRwEDhh_ivlLf1fxb0Rf2QS3z/view
Appendix 3: Agricultural Lan Assessment and Flooding/Flood Risk mapping.
Photographs of Chelmsford Road and Redrose Lane Flooding 1987; 2016.
Flooding on The Green 2016; Flooding on Redrose Lane 2016 ((note depth of water). Redrose Lane 2018.

Extract from Daily Telegraph re: 2011 flooding.

Extract from Express re 2011 Flooding:
A woman is rescued from her car stuck in floodwater in Blackmore,
Essex, yesterday
Express - 18 Jan 2011
Fire Service in Redrose Lane east bound to Chelmsford Road.

Extract from Romford recorder RE: 2011 flooding

Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan

1. This joint representation is made on behalf of:
1.1.The Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green Parish Council ('the Parish Council');
and
1.2.The Blackmore Village Heritage Association ('BVHA')
Introduction
2. The Parish Council is a statutory consultee and represents 350 households in Blackmore village (population of only 943) included in a total population of 2,561 within the wider Parish with its three distinct separate settlements. This figure does not include the many households in neighbouring villages who rely on Blackmore's facilities.
3. BVHA is an unincorporated, not for profit, organisation and has in excess of 150 active members but its newsletters are distributed to over 1,000 households.
4. Both the Parish Council and BVHA strongly oppose the proposed allocation of Sites R25 (Land north of Woollard Way, Blackmore) and R26 (Land north of Orchard Piece, Blackmore) for housing development. The proposed allocation is for "around 40 new homes" at R25 and for "around 30 new homes" at R26.
5. They say that the proposed allocations R25 and R26 are contrary to both National and Local Policies.

6. In simple terms the Parish Council's and BVHA's case is as follows:
6.1.Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate that the required housing need cannot be met on existing previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites.
6.2.Without prejudice to the above contention, if no previously developed land/sites in existing urban areas or by increasing densities on proposed allocated sites exist, that Brentwood Borough Council has failed to demonstrate there are no or insufficient previously developed sites available outside the existing urban areas.
6.3.In any event, there are greenfield sites available (for example adjoining existing urban areas) in preferable and more sustainable locations.
6.4.Moreover, R25 and R26 are inherently unsuitable developments because of (1) inadequate access, (2) flooding, (3) it will result in disproportionate increase in the housing stock, and, (4) the development would not be sustainable.
7. The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the proposed allocation of Blackmore as a Category 3 settlement within the Local Plan Settlement Hierarchy (see pages 21-25 of the Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan).
8. Accordingly, the Parish Council and BVHA submit that the Local Plan, with proposed allocations R25 and R26 and the allocation of Blackmore as a "larger village", is unsound in that it has not been positively prepared, is not justified, is not effective nor consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019 edition)('the NPPF').
Background
9. Blackmore is currently a village of approximately 350 dwellings which are home to 943 people (according to the Electoral Register). The proposal to add "around 70 homes" will add approximately 25% to the existing village housing stock. The proportionate increase to the village population would likely be greater by virtue of the number of current dwellings being occupied by two or less villagers. Outside of the LDP, housing stock is also increasing through normal planning processes both within Brentwood Borough Council and our neighbouring Epping Forest Council which will impact upon Blackmore village.
10.Blackmore is a picturesque village and surrounded by countryside. The Village Green has ponds at its eastern end. There is a village shop including post office, Primary School, two village halls, a sports and social club, tennis courts, football and cricket pitches, and a flood-lit Multi-Use Games Arena. All of these facilities are at capacity use. The village has three pubs: The Prince Albert, The Bull, and The Leather Bottle. In addition to the Anglican parish Church there is a Baptist Church in the village. However, Blackmore has a very limited bus service and is thus remote. It is over 6 miles from the centre of Brentwood and thus the villagers of Blackmore are reliant on the motor car.
11.The village School is at capacity and local residents are having to send children to neighbouring schools. There is limited scope for expansion. It is socially undesirable for some village children to be able to attend the village school and others to be "shipped out". This social harm (i.e. lack of cohesion) would be exacerbated if more resident village children had to be "shipped out" to another school.
12.In respect of employment opportunities within Blackmore these are limited and, of those of working age nearly all, if not all, commute out of the village. That commute takes place, if not exclusively, almost exclusively by private motor car. Such further evidences that Blackmore is an unsustainable location for new development.
13.Both R25 and R26 are on the Northern Boundary of the village of Blackmore. Both are bordered (to the north) by Redrose Lane, a rare extant example of a "plague detour route". Redrose Lane is narrow and with limited passing space for two motor cars. Vehicles larger than a car (i.e. Transit van and above) cannot pass without one, or the other, stopping (see Appendix One). Development of 70 dwellings would undoubtedly result in a significant number of vehicular movements - in the order of 600 to 700 per day - and, without suitable improvements (which would erode the character of Redrose Lane), cause harm.
14.Both R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. Both are on land classified as "very good" agricultural land. Both sites have ecological value and, more importantly, local residents have reported sightings of bats, owls and newts at, or in the vicinity of, R25 and R26 (See Appendix Two).
15.Whilst the Environmental Agency classifies both sites within Flood Zone 1, both R25 and R26 have flooded historically - and both have an identified flood risk (see Appendix Three).
16.The BVHA undertook a survey in July 2018 of local residents and visitors to the Village. The BVHA survey confirms that residents are opposed to the proposed allocation of R25 and R26. Of the responses received from village residents, over
300, 98% were strongly opposed to the allocation of sites R25 and R26. It should be noted that the response numbers (over 300 adult residents in the village) was extremely good and evidences the strength of local feeling. It also outlines the engagement of the local Community.
Issues concerning Consultation and Consistency
17.It is a maxim that "good planning is consistent planning".
18.The Current Local Plan (the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan) dates to 2005 and tightly controls development in the Green Belt. Thus, development on R25 and R26 is contrary to the current Local Plan policies absent "very special circumstances".
19.In a 2014 site assessment document, which was and is part of the current emerging local plan process, sites R25 and R26 were discounted as they did not meet the (then) draft Local Plan spatial strategy.
20.It is not clear why this assessment has changed - indeed, the constraints surrounding site R25 and R26 remain unchanged.
21.More recently, in the Council's (Regulation 18) 2016 draft Local Plan, it was stated that "No amendment is proposed to the Green Belt boundaries surrounding larger villages [Blackmore is defined as a larger village] in order to retain the character of the Borough in line with the spatial strategy" (para 5.33). That spatial strategy seeking, insofar as it was necessary to do so, "limited release of Green Belt land for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self- sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries". So even though Brentwood Borough Council had identified a potential need for release of Green Belt land, no suitable land was identified in Blackmore.
22.There has therefore been a significant shift of policy; namely from a position of no development at R25 and R26 to now seeking to allocate these sites for residential development. The Parish Council and BVHA say that the change in position is inconsistent and wrong for reasons more fully set out below.
23.The Parish Council and BVHA also wish to record that the Council's planning Team, represented by a Strategic Director and three other Senior Officers, confirmed at a public meeting on 31 January 2019 that Blackmore's allocation was a result of property developers promoting the development of land on which their companies held options. The Parish Council and BVHA take the view that, not only would the proposed allocation of R25 and R26 appear to be "developer-led" rather than plan- led, it shows a lack of thorough and appropriate research, and understanding of the unique character and circumstances of Blackmore. The Parish Council and BVHA further take the view that developer pressure is not a good and sufficient reason for Brentwood Borough Council to abdicate its duty to promote a sound, and consistent, Development Plan.
Evidence Base
24.Paragraph 31 NPPF provides that the preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence.
25.Part of the evidence is the "Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of the Brentwood Local Plan - SA Report - January 2019" ('the SA'). The SA tells us that a number of sustainability 'topics' inform the framework for assessing the sustainability of the site. Flooding is one of those topics (see Table 3.1 of the SA).
26.Risk of flooding is important to any sustainability appraisal not only because the NPPF and emerging policy NE06 seek to direct development away from areas of highest risk of flooding but also because flooding can put lives and property at risk. It is therefore surprising that, for all bar 21 potential sites, the SA does not consider flood risk in assessing sustainability.
27.The Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment does assess risk however and identifies a medium risk of surface water flooding for Redrose Lane (Table A4b) with Site R26 being potentially vulnerable to climate change and with a 1 in 100 annual probability of surface water flooding (Table A6b). The findings appear at odds with the fact that Sites R25 and R26 are lower than Redrose Lane and thus, one may expect, may be more vulnerable to flooding than higher land (i.e. Redrose Lane). Indeed, these sites have consistently flooded as evidenced by the photographs in Appendix Two.
28.There are, of course, documents supporting housing need. However, there is no evidence of local housing need for Blackmore, or any other villages. Whilst the Parish Council and BVHA accept that there may be some demand for housing any such demand should be properly evidenced with any housing allocation proportionate and ensuring that houses are being built in the right places.
Sustainable Development
29.It is a core planning principle that plans should be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (para 16(a) NPPF). Paragraph 8 NPPF outlines three objectives that the planning system should strive to meet.
30.The proposed allocation of sites R25 and R26 meets none of these objectives in that: 30.1. Economic objective - any contribution arising from the construction of new dwellings will be short-lived. There are no, or extremely limited, employment opportunities within Blackmore and the likelihood of new residents driving a demand for new services within the village would appear, at best, limited. In
short, any economic benefits are short-term.
30.2. Social objective - services in Blackmore are limited and the primary school
is at capacity sending additional village children to school elsewhere will further
erode social cohesion.
30.3. Environmental objective - occupiers of sites R25 and R26 would
undoubtedly be reliant on private motor cars. The sites are at risk of flooding (surface water at least) and require the release of high-grade agricultural land in the Green Belt. Redrose Lane is narrow and infrastructure works would be required to make necessary improvements which would harm the character of this area but may also result in the loss of historic hedges and important habitats.
31.There are other sites which are in far more sustainable locations which should be allocated in preference. Indeed, the SA identifies a number of sites (n.b. no scoring for flood risk) with better scores than sites R25 and R26, good examples being in Shenfield, Mountnessing, Pilgrims Hatch, Ingatestone and Brentwood such as, but not limited to, sites 038A, 253, 277B, 297, 218B, 053B, 189, 318, 288B, 153, 280, 024A and 130.
32.Furthermore, development in less sustainable locations, such as R25 and R26, before more sustainable locations, should be avoided.
Green Belt
33.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts (per para 133 NPPF). The Green Belt serves five purposes (para 134
NPPF) which includes safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, preserving the character of historic towns and assisting in urban regeneration.
34.The NPPF further confirms that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified (para 136 NPPF). Meeting an assessed housing need is not an exceptional circumstance. No other exceptional circumstances are put forward by Brentwood Borough Council.
35. Regardless, the NPPF is clear in that before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changing Green Belt boundaries Brentwood Borough Council should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified housing need (para 137 NPPF). In this respect the Parish Council and BVHA say:
35.1. There is no evidence that increasing densities elsewhere negates the need for the release of Green Belt land at sites R25 and R26. It should be remembered that the proposed Green Belt release, per Figure 4.2, only 123 of those homes are to be provided in the "larger villages" such as Blackmore which accounts for 1.5% of the total housing need (which includes a 20% buffer). This is a very modest contribution to housing supply which, the Parish Council and BVHA say, could easily be met by considering all other reasonable alternatives.
35.2. There are brownfield sites which should be identified, considered and used in preference.
35.3. There are also urban sites that should be used in preference, or alternatively, sites in more sustainable locations (i.e. close(r) to urban areas).
35.4. The village of Stondon Massey has actively sought new development within its boundaries. The same may be true of other villages within the Borough. Such "localised" development may reduce or negate the need for sites R25 and/or R26.
36.In consequence of the above, the Parish Council and BVHA say that Brentwood Borough Council has not demonstrated that it fully evidenced and justified a need to alter Green Belt boundaries nor that it has examined fully all other reasonable alternatives before doing so.
37.Further to the above, the notes to draft policy SP02 confirm that growth is prioritised "based on brownfield land and land in urban areas first; and only then brownfield land in Green Belt areas where deemed appropriate" (para 4.22). The inclusion of R25 and R26 runs contrary to this - both being greenfield land in the Green Belt.
Whilst SP02 itself talks of the need to direct development to "highly accessible locations" - sites R25 and R26 are in a rural area with poor transport links and limited accessibility. The inclusion of R25 and R26 thus conflicts with policy SP02.
A Settlement Category 3 village?
38.As above the Parish Council and BVHA say that Blackmore should be classed as a Settlement Category 4 village and not the higher Category 3. They say this because: 38.1. There is no local shopping parade but, instead, one Co-Op Store (with Post
Office), a hairdressers and a coffee shop;
38.2. It does not have a health facility - the nearest Doctor's surgery is in
Doddinghurst (which is ~3 miles away and on roads not suitable for walking);
And 38.3. There are no, or very few, local jobs. Of those of working age nearly all
commute out of the village.
39. Accordingly, some of the key attributes of a Category 3 settlement are, in Blackmore's case, missing. As a more general point the population of Blackmore is modest and a considerable margin less than that of Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch which are also classified as Category 3 settlements.
40.Further, of the Category 3 settlements it is only Blackmore (sites R25 and R26) and Kelvedon Hatch (sites R23 and R24) that it is proposed to allocate sites for housing/development. Kelvedon Hatch is in the order of 2.5 times larger (by population) than Blackmore - however its proposed housing allocation (total of ~53) is less, by approximately 25%, than that proposed for Blackmore.
41.This is in contrast to the larger Category 3 settlements of Doddinghurst and Ingrave which have no proposed allocation for housing. Indeed, no allocation is proposed for the other Category 3 settlements of Herongate and Mountnessing.
42.Simply put, the Parish Council and BVHA say that the classification of, and proposed housing allocation in, Blackmore is incorrect.
Other
43.The Parish Council and BVHA support the strategy within the plan. Indeed, in the main they recognise and support the policies within the draft plan. However, they take issue with allocations of sites R25 and R26; not only for the reasons above but when considered against the policy which Brentwood Borough Council are promoting. For example, sites R25 and R26 perform poorly against, or conflict with, draft policies SP01, SP02, SP03, NE01, NE09, BE12, BE13 and BE45. This is not withstanding the case that, in applying the NPPF, the Parish Council and BVHA say that development should be directed elsewhere in preference to sites R25 an R26.
44.The Parish Council and BVHA also take issue with the fact that of the 123 net homes allocated for "larger villages" 70, or approximately 56% of the total allocation, are met by these two sites. Thus, a disproportionately large amount of the allocation is from sites R25 and R26.
45.The above is notwithstanding the Parish Council and BVHA's primary contention that sites R25 and R26, but possibly all proposed sites on Green Belt Land in larger villages (i.e. settlement category 3), can and should be removed from the Plan.
46.The evidence of working with adjoining planning authorities is limited with a general statement that "adjacent planning authorities [have] confirmed that they [are] unwilling and unable to take any of the Brentwood identified housing need". The Parish Council and BVHA invite Brentwood Borough Council to more fully disclose the extent and nature of discussions that have been held with neighbouring authorities.
Summary/Conclusion
47.The Parish Council and BVHA represent the residents of Blackmore village - an overwhelming majority of whom are opposed to the inclusion of sites R25 and R26.
48.Sites R25 and R26 are in the Green Belt. There are no exceptional circumstances justifying their removal from the Green Belt. There is no evidence to demonstrate that all other reasonable alternatives have been explored - those alternatives including increasing densities or brownfield land and land in more urban/sustainable locations. The removal of sites R25 and R26 from the Green Belt is contrary to both local and national planning policies.
49.Development on R25 and R26 has historically been discounted, most recently as 2016. There is no change in local circumstances justifying development on sites R25 and R26 now.
50.Sites R25 and R26 are in an unsustainable location served by a constrained access (Redrose Lane) and with an identified risk of flooding. The development of R25 and R26 does not represent sustainable development.
51.The restricted access that Redrose Lane affords is inconsistent with Brentwood Borough Council's removal of Honey Pot Lane from the LDP on grounds of restricted access. At the Extraordinary Brentwood Council Meeting of 8th November a site known as Honeypot Lane, included in the Plan since inception, was withdrawn. This allocation, designed to include social and low-cost housing within 500m of the Town Centre, was removed due the narrowness of a small section of the road access that created a 'pinch-point', despite being bordered by open land providing opportunity for road widening. Unlike the continuously narrow and unpaved Redrose Lane, Honeypot Lane enjoys a double-width carriageway for all but a short section and is split between 20mph and 30mphs limits. Redrose Lane, where the national speed limit applies, is posted with weight restriction warning; whereas Honeypot Lane is not.
52.There is no evidence of a need for housing in the village of Blackmore. If there is a need then it has not been quantified by reference to number of type/size of property. Regardless, the proposed allocation accounts for a disproportionately large amount of development in "larger villages" within the Borough (i.e. >50% of the proposed Green Belt release in larger villages comes from Blackmore alone).
53.The plan is not sound with the inclusion of sites R25 and R26. The inclusion of sites R25 and R26 cannot be justified owing to the absence of proportionate evidence and a failure to assess all reasonable alternatives. The inclusion of these sites is contrary to national policy, particularly with regards to sustainable development and Green Belt land policies within the NPPF.
54.The Parish Council and BVHA believe that the change in approach, i.e. in seeking to allocate R25 and R26 now, is a result of developer pressure rather than a true assessment of the planning merit (or lack of) of sites R25 and R26 for residential development.
55.Brentwood Borough Council should amend the plan to retain R25 and R26 as Green Belt and not allocate them for housing.
HOLMES & HILLS LLP Dated 18 March 2019
Appendix 1: Photos of Redrose Lane with reference to size of Lane.
Appendix 2: Appendix Two - re R25 and R26 as Important Habitat sites
Blackmore Wildlife
The wildlife listed below has all been observed in the fields by Woollard Way and Orchard Piece and these fields provide invaluable nesting and foraging grounds.
Birds:
Redpoll, Yellowhammer, Skylarks, Barn Owls, Little Owls, Buzzard, Red Kite, Sparrowhawk, Song Thrush, Red-legged Partridges, Kestrels, Turtle Doves, Hedge sparrow, Siskin.
In particular Barn Owls and their nesting sites are protected by law during the breeding season - https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/ringing/taking-part/protected-birds/s1- list
Turtle doves, Skylarks and Yellow Hammers are on the RSPB's red list which means,
amongst other things, that the species is globally threatened and are the highest priority for conservation - https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/wildlife-guides/uk- conservation-status-explained/

Reptiles:
Grass Snakes and Great Crested Newts which are a protected species -
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/amphibians/great-crested-newt
Photos of Owl; Sparrowhawk; reptile: newt; Bats:
All bats are protected by the law in the UK - https://www.bats.org.uk/advice/bats-and- the-law

They are frequently seen flying around the fields (i.e. R25 and R26) and there is possible nesting in the outbuildings.
Bats - video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Be5ZUlvRwEDhh_ivlLf1fxb0Rf2QS3z/view
Appendix 3: Agricultural Lan Assessment and Flooding/Flood Risk mapping.
Photographs of Chelmsford Road and Redrose Lane Flooding 1987; 2016.
Flooding on The Green 2016; Flooding on Redrose Lane 2016 ((note depth of water). Redrose Lane 2018.

Extract from Daily Telegraph re: 2011 flooding.

Extract from Express re 2011 Flooding:
A woman is rescued from her car stuck in floodwater in Blackmore,
Essex, yesterday
Express - 18 Jan 2011
Fire Service in Redrose Lane east bound to Chelmsford Road.

Extract from Romford recorder RE: 2011 flooding

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.

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.

Please refer to "BVHA neighborhood plan ". [Not supplied].

Section 09 R25 , R26 two fields off of Red Rose Lane

Section 08 -Greenbelt flooding
04- Managing growth
Unsound :
BBC has not demonstrated that there are other brownfield sites that are available and which should take priority over the greenfield land off Red Rose Lane.
There has been no Housing Needs Survey to demonstrate why Blackmore is included in the LDP.
The access off/from Red Rose Lane is entirely unsuitable for the volume of traffic movements if development goes ahead.
Please refer to "BVHA neighbourhood plan " [Not supplied].
I support BVHA representation

Withdraw plan as it stands. Consider brown field sites, infills and derelict properties,
Use parish council to communicate with the residents,
Establish a realistic proposal via the residents/parish council

The plan is unsound, not legally compliant and fails to comply with the duty to cooperate. Yet again green belt is being developed on. Blackmore struggles to deal with the amount of traffic and parking and will not cope with the new development. Doctors surgeries, public amenities are already at breaking point, how will they cope.
Increased risk of flooding
Withdraw plan as it stands. Consider brown field sites, infills and derelict properties,
Use parish council to communicate with the residents,
Establish a realistic proposal via the residents/parish council

I believe sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and planners should refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan which sets out our Housing Needs for our already sustainable community.

The BBC has not consulted adequately with neighbouring authorities (Epping Council) who are in process of building c. 30 houses at top of Fingrith Hall Lane - the impact this has on the village where the infrastructure is not sound to incorporate extra traffic. There are other brownfield sites that are available and they must take priority over our precious greenbelt. The school is at full capacity and the doctors surgery would not be able to accommodate the extra numbers.

We / I do not believe green belt land in Blackmore should be released for this development as part of BBC Local Plan due to all of the aforementioned reasons.

A residential development such as has been 1. submitted for Blackmore will further stretch the infrastructure (roads, parking, schools, doctors surgeries). 2. There are other more suitable locations in the borough. 3. There are brown field sites available which should be prioritised over green field sites. 4. The area of Blackmore is known to be a flood risk (23rd June 2016). 5. Access to and from the development site entirely unsuitable for increased traffic problems.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDP and that planners should refer to the BVHA "neighbourhood plan" which clearly sets out the local planning needs for our already sustainable community.

1. Red Rose Lane is not suitable for urban development, Blackmore has modest services and infrastructure which are failing with the existing population. 2. Access to/from Red Rose Lane is unsustainable for the volume of traffic. 3. Red Rose Lane is prone to flooding and any construction on this site could push the problem onto current residents property.

Please see BVHA neighbourhood plan.

The local plan is unsound because: 1. Blackmore is a small isolated rural village so it hasn't got the infrastructure and would affect school admissions, doctors wait times, parking, etc. 2. The Red Rose Lane is entirely unsustainable for this volume of traffic. 3. Brentwood Council hasn't looked at the used of brownfield sites that are available and take priority over the greenbelt lane off Red Rose Lane. 4. There has been no survey with regards to housing needs why Blackmore is included in the LDP.

1. I would like the proposed sites R25 and R26 removed from local development plan. 2. Consult the BVHA neighbourhood plan for sustainable development. 3. Why doesn't Brentwood Council lead the way to protect green belt and historical heritage sites - Blackmore at the top of the list. 4. Green alternative use to those sites eg allotments, solar panels on both to serve the village.

1. Building on greenbelt; 2. Infrastructure of school, surgery, parking, drainage; 3. Lack of consultation re local needs; 4. Local wildlife habitat leading to more flooding because of habitat removal; 5. Impact from top of Fingrith Hall Lane!!! Epping Borough. 6. More traffic pollution, risk of road accidents increases could lead to injury and deaths; 7. Local shop couldn't cope with the extra load; 8. Village will end up being part of London sprawl; 9. The profound historical nature and heritage will be deeply impacts; 10. Blackmore be a 'through' way / short cut from Red Rose at top of Fingrith Hall Road.

I agree with the Blackmore Heritage Association Plan.

On the basis of: 1. The village school is not large enough to accommodate a large increase in numbers and if was made 2 classes larger it would lose its village school feel. 2. It is difficult to get appointments at our GO surgery as it is. 3. Blackmore would lose its small village feel and identity. 4. More houses would mean more traffic and would make the roads less safe for pedestrians, particularly children. 5. Cheaper housing would change the demographic of the area. 6. Not all villages need to have affordable housing. I couldn't have afforded to live here when I got married but it was somewhere I aspired to and with hard work we could eventually afford to live here after a few years. 7. The village already has a problem with flooding without building on it further.

blank comment box

Sites R25 and R26 need to be removed from the LDP.

No clear strategy for Blackmore in north of BBC. Lack of consultation with nearby authorities (i.e. Epping FDC) - north part of Fingrith Hall Lane houses being built. Infrastructure - our modest services are already over stretched - school is full doctors appointments are hard to get. Traffic and parking - this will increase massively in the village will be dangerous. There are more suitable sites on and around Brentwood - i.e. old Toomey site on Ingrave Road has been empty for absolutely years as have many others in BBC Ongar Road former commercial park in town centre. No housing needs survey conducted to show why Blackmore is in the LDP. Access in/out Red Rose Lane unsuitable for volume of traffic the developments will produce accidents will happen. Proposed sites doe flood - building on these will increase flood risk elsewhere in village

is narrow and winding, cars have to slow down to pass. There are ditches on either side and no footpaths. The exit onto Nine Ashes Road often floods and is a particularly junction, right by the school. An increase in traffic would be a great risk. Blackmore is a very small village and despite being very isolated has a minimal bus service. There is one shop a full school that is already over stretched and a doctor surgery that isn't cope now. The narrow roads are unsuitable for heavy traffic and already car parking problems. Blackmore village cannot possibly cope with the strem of the proposed developments on its infrastructure. I therefore consider the plan to be unsound. Why choose Blackmore greenbelt when there are other locations within Brentwood Borough Council more sustainable.

Living on Red Rose Lane I see continuous stream of dog walkers, joggers, hikers, cyclists and horse riders all enjoying a country village lane. It is narrow and winding, cars have to slow down to pass. There are ditches on either side and no footpaths. The exit onto Nine Ashes Road often floods and is a particularly junction, right by the school. An increase in traffic would be a great risk. Blackmore is a very small village and despite being very isolated has a minimal bus service. There is one shop a full school that is already over stretched and a doctor surgery that isn't cope now. The narrow roads are unsuitable for heavy traffic and already car parking problems. Blackmore village cannot possibly cope with the strem of the proposed developments on its infrastructure. I therefore consider the plan to be unsound. Why choose Blackmore greenbelt when there are other locations within Brentwood Borough Council more sustainable.

Remove plans for sites R25 and R26. Suggest the Planners refer to the BVH Neighbourhood Plan which illustrates the villages housing needs relevant to maintaining a sustainable community.

Epping Forest District Council was not consulted about the 30 homes being built at the top of Fringrith Hall Lane, hence no consideration was given to the impact this wil have on our village. No clear strategy has been outlined for Blackmore in the north of the borough. Our doctors surgery is oversubscribed - no more patients please!! The school is full, don't ruin it by overfilling the classrooms. Where would the excess water go? There's nowhere to park as it is! We love the wildlife here - please don't destroy their homes.

Site R25 and R26 need to be removed from the Local Development Plan. We need housing that fulfils a sustainable community as outlined in BVH Neighbouring Plan.

The village infrastructure is insufficient to deal with a significant increase in population in terms of oversubscribed school and doctor surgery. I totally disapprove of building on greenfield sites.

I should like to raise the following issues regarding the LDP. GREEN BELT - While it concerns me that it has proved necessary to utilize Green Belt, I admire the council for sticking to its guns regarding defensible boundaries in order to prevent urban sprawl. I am aware that it is a government diktat that Green Belt should be used to
accommodate the unprecedented housing need but wonder why the enormous
brownfield Clapgate scrapyard site, off Chivers Road in Stondon Massey, is not part of the equation. TRAFFIC CONCERNS - I believe that problems besetting the Clapgate scrapyard site include difficulties involving access. Yet to invest in providing this could help to solve the problems below. 1. Traffic from the large amount of houses destined for Pilgrims Hatch, with access to the Doddinghurst Road, will make the road even more congested at peak times and will result in "rat runs" along minor roads. 2 Traffic from those houses on the William Hunter Way site will put an ENORMOUS amount of pressure on Brentwood's congested unofficial ring road, comprising Western Avenue and Western Road. The junction with the latter and Weald Road is totally inadequate with traffic lights so close to the mini roundabout there. Already, the back up of traffic caused by having to give way to vehicles from the right, and the proximity of the traffic lights, can cause tailbacks stretching down to Western Road, past North Road. I can only imagine the impact of more traffic on the Ongar Road. 3. To build these houses will deprive the town of valuable car parking space and dissaude outsiders from visiting Brentwood. As if the shops didn't have enough problems this could well and truly put a nail in the coffin.
4. As a resident of Pilgrims Hatch, I can testify that the area has a good bus service but, as a widowed pensioner, I would not be able to shop in Brentwood without a car - I would not be able to carry heavy shopping bags to and from bus stops and on and off buses. I rely heavily on collect-by-car services. Yes, I could resort to on-line ordering but this would further adversely affect the life blood of the High Street
ETHICAL CONCERNS - There is a development of 48 units on Western Road, close to its junction with Weald Road, listed as part of the LDP. This development was earlier presented to me, by the council, as a planning application and I was invited to submit any objections I might have. They were: More traffic debouching on to an already congested Western Road (part of Brentwood's unofficial ring road) close to its inadequate junction with Weald Road (as described in No.2 above). The design of the building did not blend with the appearance of the Edwardian /Victorian buildings in what was originally a quiet, residential road but is now a busy thoroughfare. The plans showed that this block of appartments more resembled the
high-rise ugly 1960 structures which Brentwood has been working hard to eliminate
from its townscape. I heard no more officially but understand that, owing to the huge amount of objections, the planners were trying to resolve some problems with the developers who refused to give the council the necessary time in which to do this. They appear to have got round the problem by resorting to the site's listing in the LOP (it had been listed for the development of 22 dwellings in the first draft).
Although this might be a legal loophole, it appears unethical to me because I understand it will be subject to a different policy to that which affects a normal planning application. It suggests that the developer wants to avoid the more stringent measures involved in the latter such as the design of the building and the fact that, in such a restricted area, the only alternative would be to build upwards which would totally conflict with the entire tenor of other homes in the road. CONCLUSION - All these problems appear to have arisen because the Government is demanding too much from such a small town. There is neither the capacity nor infra-structure for further building in the centre and to build outside its confines threatens the Green Belt Despite the need for housing, it is my suspicion that the Government's main aim is to test the water for future expansion of Greater London into Essex. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has informed me that the Government has ordered local councils to use Green Belt for building whether there are brownfield sites available or not I wonder whether this could this be the reason why the Stondon Massey scrapyard has not been considered for development.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan

Local Plan is unsound: Blackmore is a small village and development of this size on green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Fingrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore, i.e. doctor, shop, school. None of which can cope now. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would do in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted. Other villages excluded, as well as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chelmsford Road and Spriggs Lane that amount to 20 additional houses. Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for this traffic. It floods and is unpassable every time we have heavy rain. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussion with Epping Council, as they border on the village

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan

Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for ths traffic. It floods and is unpassable every time we have rain. Blackmore is a small village and development of this size one green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Fingrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore, i.e. doctor, shop, school, none of which can cope now. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussion with Epping Council as they border on the village. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted and other villages excluded. As will as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chemlsford road and Spriggs Lane to amount to 20 additional houses.

Remove the proposed sites field 25 and 26 from local development plan. Consult local people they know how congested and dangerous the roads are winding and very narrow.

1. No trains, bus one an hour everyone must drive. In my col de sack each household has 3, 4, 5 cars. 2. The roads are very narrow and dangerous every month at least one car (a Tesco delivery lorry last week) turned upside down in ditch. 3. Cannot get appointment with doctor surgery. 4. Roads too dangerous for children to cycle. 5. Plenty of space nearer to Brentwood.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan.

Local Plan is unsound. Blackmore is a small village and development of this size on Green Belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses built in Firgrith Hall Lane under Epping Council, all these homes will be using services of Blackmore i.e. doctor, shop, school - none of which can cope now. There are plenty of other urban sites that could take this development without ruining the local infrastructure as it would do in Blackmore. Why is Blackmore being targeted and other villages excluded, as well as this plan there are plans for additional homes on Chelmsford Road, Spriggs Lane that amount to 20 additional houses. Red Rose Lane is an unsuitable lane for this traffic, it floods and is unpassable every time we have heavy rain. There appears to be no clear strategy for the villages in this area and no discussions with Epping Council, as they border on the village.

Please refer to the BVHA Neighbourhood Plan.

Local Plan is unsound. Blackmore is a small village and development on green belt land is inappropriate. There is no consideration by Brentwood Council re: 30 houses in Fingrith Hall Lane. Under Epping Council, all these homes will be using Blackmore servives, doctors, shop, school. These cannot cope now. Red Rose Lane is not suitable for this amount of traffic. It often floods. There is no clear strategy for the villages in this area. No consultations with Epping Council which border village. There are other urban sites which could be developed. There is als other sites planned for development on Chelmsford Road, Spriggs Lane which amounts to 20 additional homes.

There is no clear strategy for the Villages .Including Blackmore. No account has been taken of the c.30 dwellings at the top end of Fingrith Hall Lane. Blackmore and the impact these will have locally. Blackmore is an isolated village within the Green Belt, with very poor local services. No Library, very poor bus service, congested village lanes, severe parking problems at peak times, long delays 5/4 weeks for the local Deal Tree Health center in Doddinghurst. Current primary school in need of development for any additional pupil intake. BBC has not shown that other brownfield sites are available. BBC has not shown that increased housing developments could be achieved by increasing housing density on other allocated sites. No Housing needs survey has been undertaken to show why Blackmore is included in the LDP. Local lanes are at capacity during peek travel times and the additional vehicle use of access to and from the site from Red Rose Lane opposite the Village Primary School will present significant traffic problems. There is inadequate provision for waste water removal in Blackmore. No report on these two sites in Blackmore have taken into account the biodiversity of impact on the local wildlife using these two greenfield sites which have not been in productive arable use for the last 20 years at least, and therefore are vital corridors for wildlife. Any development on these two greenfield sites will seriously affect the following bird species on the Birds of Conservation and Concern 4 (BOCC4) endangered listings. Red List . Starling, Song Thrush, House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow, Linnet, Twite, Yellowhammer. And on the BOCC4 Amber List. Dunnock, Bullfinch. All the above endangered species can been seen in and around these sites.

BBC planners should refer to the Blackmore Village neighbourhood plan, which was properly composed and states what the village and villagers need. Far too many of what might have been thought of as affordable, have been extended, modified to the maximum and are no longer affordable. There are very few properties left in Blackmore of smaller, single storey bungalow type. The sites R25 and R26 should be taken out of the local development plan for the reasons given.

BBC has not carried out a local survey recently relating to current housing needs of Blackmore village. BBC has no clear strategy for its villages and has not considered the available brownfield sites which are there and should take priority over development of greenbelt. The development is led by developers not thought through by BBC. BBC has not considered the adjacent authorities Plans - eg Epping Forest DC, who have permitted the building of about 30-40 dwellings at the top of Fingrith Hall, and have permission pending in Woolmongers lane. Both of these already will affect Blackmore village infrastructure. The proposed developments R25 and R26 look to access from Red Roe Lane which is extremely unsuitable both width and visibility wise. The construction of so many dwellings will overwhelm the Blackmore infrastructure. Our school is already full, the doctor surgery is difficult enough to get appointments now. Parking for our shops, cafes and pubs is already insufficient. The urban extension to Brentwood which is already planned could be extended and Blackmore is not a sustainable development as above.

Remove sites R25 and R26

I feel as though the Plan is unsound, is not legally compliant and fails to comply with the duty to cooperate for sites R25 and R26 for the following reasons: 1. The number of houses proposed is far too many for the small village. The parking in the village is chaotic at the moment without the proposed new developments. 2. Local school, pre-school and doctors are oversubscribed already. 3. New development will affect the wildlife. On many occasions I have seen barn owls flying around the proposed development. 4. Cyclist, walkers come to Blackmore village to escape the hustle and bustle of towns. The new developments will change the whole feel of the village. There are very few, small, unspoilt villages left. 5. In the past the village has been flooded. The site proposed are liable to flooding. 6. More houses means more cars means more pollution. People come to the countryside to get away from it.

I do not think that any modification will be able to make the plan sustainable for Blackmore.

My concerns relate specifically to the sustainability of Blackmore's inclusion in the Local Plan. My points relating to Blackmore are shown on the attached type sheet below. 1. GP services are already badly stretched. It take three to four weeks to get a non-emergency appointment. A higher population will strain this service to breaking point. 2. Blackmore is already prone to flooding. Building on greenfield / Green Belt land can only worsen this situation by reducing the available drainage areas. 3. The only parking available in the village, other than by the village hall, which is a long walk from local facilities, is along the narrow roads. These are already becoming full of parked vehicles. 4. As a small village, many of Blackmore's roads, in particular in the Redrose Lane area, are not much more than narrow lanes with no footpaths. The roads cannot support additional traffic resulting from increased housing, let alone construction traffic. 5. Transport links from the village to town are poor, with the bus service permanently under threat. This forces people into their cars already, without adding to the burden. Blackmore is too far away and cut off from the town centre and railway stations to be of benefit to new residents wishing to work in town or commute elsewhere. 6. There is no proven need for more housing this far away from the town. 7. The proposed development is on Green Belt land when there are Brown Belt area more usefully located closer to Brentwood and Shenfield. 8. The proposal does not take into account the increased housing from areas of private development within Blackmore. 9. Blackmore is small village of historical importance and character. Further development, will damage it irreversibly.

Sites R25 and R26 should be removed from the LDO. In accordance with 'local needs' some smaller homes could be allowed which would give existing residents the choice to "downsize", redeeming their (?) home.

Development of the proposed site has not been proven to be what is required in the village. Development by neighbouring authorities (e.g. Epping DC) have not been considered. Brownfield sites within BBC's authority have not been considered over Green field sites. Adjacent authorities have not been consulted. A 30 odd house development is already being built and other proposed sites e.g. Woollard Lane are "permission pending". The proposed development of 90 plus houses is far too many for the existing infrastructure, particularly Red Rose Lane for traffic 'and often local roads, doctors surgery is barely able to cope with the existing numbers and new classrooms would be needed in the local primary school. As Princess Ann supported a few years ago, if every village was about to build 4-5 houses, then local needs could be met and absorbed. BBC has not proposed this in other villages within its authority.

1. Remove the site from the plan and look at alternative brown fill sites and building fills. 2. Ask and consult local residents about what is required in the local district. 3. Discuss with the local councillors who know their area.

1. Major concerns about flooding in village due to additional strain on the drainage / sewage systems. 2. Overload on already strained infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors surgery, parking facilities. 3. Additional traffic and parking problems on already overused country lanes which were not designed for heavy traffic. 4. Building on green belt is not acceptable when brown fill sites are available.

1. Remove the site from the plan and look at alternative brown fill sites and building fills. 2. Ask and consult local residents about what is required in the local district. 3. Discuss with the local councillors who know their area.

1. Major concerns about flooding in village due to additional strain on the drainage / sewage systems. 2. Overload on already strained infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors surgery, parking facilities. 3. Additional traffic and parking problems on already overused country lanes which were not designed for heavy traffic. 4. Building on green belt is not acceptable when brown fill sites are available.