POLICY NE12: PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND IN GREEN BELT

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Support

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

Representation ID: 23712

Received: 01/05/2019

Respondent: Ms Heather Dunbar

Agent: MR ALAN WIPPERMAN

Representation Summary:

Policy NE12 is supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.

Full text:

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

Support

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

Representation ID: 23823

Received: 03/05/2019

Respondent: Sow & Grow Nursery

Representation Summary:

Policy NE12 is supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.

Full text:


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Attachments:

Support

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

Representation ID: 23855

Received: 07/05/2019

Respondent: Ms Maxine Armiger

Representation Summary:

Policy NE12 is supported as it would better reflect the use of previously developed land in the Green Belt.

Full text:

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23890

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Redrow Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Criterion A(d) requires the provision of community benefits in order to redevelop PDL in the Green Belt. This is not a requirement set out in paragraph 145 of the NPPF and therefore it is inconsistent with national policy. Criterion A(e) requires the provision of travel links. This is a potentially onerous requirement for the scale of development that may be proposed and again is not a requirement set out in paragraph 145 of the NPPF. It is therefore inconsistent with national policy.

Change suggested by respondent:

Delete Criteria A(d) and (e) in order to comply with the NPPF.

Full text:

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

Attachments: