8.84

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 22585

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Sasha Millwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The definition of "brownfield" land is too loose. For example, the former site compound around J29 of the M25 was always supposed to be only temporary, yet the Council has used that as a justification to label it "brownfield". Whilst I agree that brownfield sites should be developed in preference to greenfield sites, the definition of "brownfield" must be far more constrained, and must not include open spaces such as sports pitches.

Change suggested by respondent:

Restrict the definition of "brownfield" to sites which have genuinely already had heavy development, and exclude sports pitches, temporary site compounds, and other developments which do not currently encroach on the "open" nature of the Green Belt.

Full text:

The definition of "brownfield" land is too loose. For example, the former site compound around J29 of the M25 was always supposed to be only temporary, yet the Council has used that as a justification to label it "brownfield". Whilst I agree that brownfield sites should be developed in preference to greenfield sites, the definition of "brownfield" must be far more constrained, and must not include open spaces such as sports pitches.

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 24143

Received: 23/05/2019

Respondent: Wiggins Gee Homes Ltd

Agent: David Russell Associates

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The paragraph says that after giving priority to brownfield sites and what it refers to as "previous development land", it has been necessary to review Green Belt boundaries, resulting in the release of some 1% of the District's Green Belt land for development. In the context of paragraph 8.84, it is not clear what is meant by "previous development land". It could mean one of three things:
 allocations made in the existing Local Development Plan that have not yet been developed
 major developed sites in the Green Belt
 brownfield land also referred to as previously developed land.
We are assuming it means the first of these.
We believe that a number of allocations made in the Pre-Submission Document are unsound for reasons that are set out in our representations on both the overall growth strategy and individual allocations. The balance between allocations in areas outside the Green Belt and in the Green Belt is unsound. It should be corrected by releasing a larger percentage of Green Belt land.

Change suggested by respondent:

The sentence in paragraph 8.84 beginning:
"These exceptional circumstances have resulted in a 1% release of land from the Green Belt ...".
should be altered to read:
"These exceptional circumstances have resulted in a 1.5% release of land from the Green Belt ...".

Full text:

The paragraph says that after giving priority to brownfield sites and what it refers to as "previous development land", it has been necessary to review Green Belt boundaries, resulting in the release of some 1% of the District's Green Belt land for development. In the context of paragraph 8.84, it is not clear what is meant by "previous development land". It could mean one of three things:
 allocations made in the existing Local Development Plan that have not yet been developed
 major developed sites in the Green Belt
 brownfield land also referred to as previously developed land.
We are assuming it means the first of these.
We believe that a number of allocations made in the Pre-Submission Document are unsound for reasons that are set out in our representations on both the overall growth strategy and individual allocations. The balance between allocations in areas outside the Green Belt and in the Green Belt is unsound. It should be corrected by releasing a larger percentage of Green Belt land.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 24181

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Redrow Homes

Agent: Redrow Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In Chapter 9 neither the text nor the individual allocations, for example RO3, Land north of Shenfield, a Green Belt site, make any reference to Green Belt boundary changes and their justification.

Change suggested by respondent:

Redrow Homes propose: 1- A new policy to follow on from Policy SP02, in Chapter 4 (Managing Growth): Alteration of Green Belt Boundaries The areas of land covered by the following policies are removed from the Green Belt: RO3, (and all others concerned) The Council has arrived at these alterations on the basis of a sequential examination of brownfield and other sites not in the Green Belt, of a review of densities of development and of discussions with neighbouring local authorities to test the scope for them meeting some of the need for housing arising in Brentwood. The exceptional circumstances that justify the alterations are the severe shortage of land not within the Green Belt and suitable for development, making it impossible for the Council to meet its housing need other than through limited alterations of Green Belt boundaries. The Council has selected sites for boundary alterations where there will be least harm to the purposes of the Green Belt. 2- A new line to be added in the sequential test set out in para 3.23 Using Land Sequentially and the table revised to focus on land types: - Brownfield land within urban areas - Greenfield land within urban areas - Brownfield land within the Green Belt - Greenfield land within the Green Belt 3- Policy NE13 (Site Allocations in the Green Belt) is altered as follows: These sites are de-allocated from the Green Belt to allow development to take place...4- Para 8.117 is deleted.

Full text:

Site RO3, Land North of Shenfield, is allocated for development in Policy RO3 (Chapter 9), having been signposted in Policy SP02: Managing Growth. The site is currently in the Green Belt and the allocation anticipates the development of around 825 homes and associated infrastructure and facilities. The land to the east of the Chelmsford Road is in two ownerships, and both land promoters have agreed the principles of an overall master plan with Brentwood Borough Council. The Draft Local Plan anticipates that the homes will be delivered between 2023/24 and 2030/31; Redrow Homes is intending to see its portion of the new housing completed prior to this period, enabling it to contribute to the 5-Year Housing Land Supply. Redrow Homes, concerned to see its part of the Draft Plan implemented as quickly as possible, which requires the Draft Plan to be adopted equally soon, has considered the case made in the Draft Plan for the release of land from the Green Belt. However, Redrow Homes equally reserves the right to submit a planning application prior to adoption of the Local Plan given that the local authority can make a decision based on the planning merit and robust evidence base of a planning application prior to adoption of the emerging policy. In response to the Regulation 19 submission draft consideration of the Draft Plan follows in the next paragraphs. The NPPF 2018 has two main stipulations relating to alterations of Green Belt boundaries: "136. (part) Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans. Strategic policies should establish the need for any changes to Green Belt boundaries..." "137 (part) Before concluding that exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries, the strategic policy-making authority should be able to demonstrate that it has examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development.." Examined fully all other reasonable options. The second requirement (examined fully all other reasonable options) should be conducted before the first. The Council's overall approach to site selection is described in the "Preferred Site Allocations, Site Selection Methodology and Summary of Outcomes, Working Draft, January 2018" and the approach is summarised in Figure 7 of that document and in para 3.23 of the Draft Plan. This sequential approach includes brownfield sites in the Green Belt but not greenfield sites in the Green Belt. Furthermore para 3.23 confuses a number of site selection criteria, for example proximity to transport facilities, as well as the key quality of the sites. At several points in the Draft Plan the Council has described how it went through this examination, most notably at paras 4.22-4.23 and the associated Figure 4.2, which shows that some 20% of the total new housing proposed will be located on Green Belt land. It would be helpful if this Figure could be explicitly labelled as illustrating the sequential examination. The examination is also described in paras 8.81-8.84 under the Green Belt and Rural Development heading; this passage also refers to the examination of all other reasonable options in the Sustainability Appraisal. The Council also commissioned a Green Belt Study, which assessed the contribution of potential development sites in the Green Belt to the purposes of the Green Belt; whilst there is an allusion to the results of the study in para 8.84 ("areas where the purposes of the Green Belt can still be demonstrated as being intact thereby maintaining the essential characteristics of 'openness'."), there is no direct reference to the study. Immediately after this the Draft Plan goes on to say "These exceptional circumstances have resulted in a 1% release of land from the Green Belt and have defined the need for Green Belt boundary changes in Policy SP02 Managing Growth and depicted in Figure 3.2 Growth Areas." The exceptional circumstances quoted here refer to the sequential examination of sites and to the assessment of the contribution that sites make to the purposes of the Green Belt. But the NPPF makes clear that exceptional circumstances and examination of all other reasonable options are distinct tests and exceptional circumstances won't normally be demonstrated through the sequential test alone. Equally, the issue of the impact on the purposes of the Green Belt is one of harm, not simply whether the lack of harm helps in the exceptional circumstances argument. Exceptional Circumstances The text at para 8.84 points to Policy SP02 Managing Growth as the policy that introduces the boundary changes. Policy SP02 sets out the number of dwellings for which land will be provided in the plan period and states that new development within the Borough will be directed towards (a) the site allocations in Chapter 9 and (b) highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. The policy makes no reference to Green Belt boundary changes. The text leading up to Policy SP02 explains how the Green Belt prevents the Council from identifying a five-year housing land supply, but not why land in the Green Belt is needed in order to deliver the required supply of additional housing. In Chapter 9 neither the text nor the individual allocations, for example RO3, Land north of Shenfield, a Green Belt site, make any reference to Green Belt boundary changes and their justification. Policy NE13, Site Allocations in the Green Belt, provides firstly for such sites to provide significant community benefits and secondly that: "These sites will be de-allocated from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2." The supporting text to this policy offers no justification in terms of exceptional circumstances. A short para (8.117) provides some explanation for the quoted section of the policy: "This policy also sets out the principles of removing allocated Green Belt development sites from the Green Belt. This de-allocation will allow for planning applications to be considered within the context of policies within this Plan as well as national policy and guidance." The term "will be" in the policy and the references to setting out the principles and planning applications in the supporting text make it unclear whether the Green Belt boundary changes are affected in the Draft Plan or they need to be justified by subsequent planning applications. Conclusions: Redrow Homes believe that the Draft Local Plan is not sound as it is not fully compliant with the NPPF. Comparing the Draft Local Plan with the requirements of the NPPF 2018 we conclude that: 1- The Draft Plan does not include a policy expressly changing Green Belt boundaries and justifying those changes in terms of exceptional circumstances. 2- The sequential approach adopted by the Council does not expressly include greenfield sites in the Green Belt. 3- The use of the future tense ("will be") in Policy NE13 creates a doubt as to whether Green Belt changes are introduced by the Draft Plan, when adopted, or at some later date. 4- The Draft Plan is unclear as to whether Green Belt boundary changes are being affected by the Draft Plan or they need to be justified in planning applications.