The Plan needs to consider safeguarding land in order to meet longer term development needs.

Hallam Land Management have made representations elsewhere as to the failure of the Plan to show a sufficient supply and mix of sites to meet the minimum number of homes required, or to address the issue of unmet needs.

In this context, the Draft Plan should be providing more land for housing and thereby releasing more land from its Green Belt in order to promote sustainable patterns of development as required by Paragraph 138 of the Framework.

It is noted from paragraph 8.84 of the Draft Plan that the Council propose to only release 1% of land from the Green Belt within the Borough. This release will not result in any discernible difference to the character and appearance of the Borough, and is indicative of the fact that the Draft Plan has not thoroughly examined the contribution it should be making towards housing needs within the wider region through the release of Green Belt land. Moreover, the Draft Plan has not therefore considered the implications of its approach for sustainable development and settlements within and beyond the Green Belt in accordance with Paragraph 138 of the Framework.

Whilst the Council has reviewed its Green Belt as part of the process of preparing its Local Plan, the Assessment appears to have been overly influenced by the draft housing requirement set within the Draft Plan, and therefore over-estimated certain sites' contributions to the five purposes of the Green Belt in order to arrive at the proposed allocations and the draft housing requirement.

It is Hallam Land Management's strong view that there is a site that warrants release from the Green Belt as its development would contribute towards sustainable development and meeting housing needs where they arise, without undermining the integrity of the Green Belt within the Borough. This site is referred to as Calcott Hall Farm, Brentwood and representations are made elsewhere which support its proposed allocation.

Safeguarded Land

Notwithstanding the need to consider whether further land should be released from the Green Belt, national planning policy requires Local Plans to be able to demonstrate that Green Belt boundaries beyond the plan period will not need to be altered (NPPF para. 139).
In the context of a Local Plan area covered predominantly by Green Belt designation, with limited windfall opportunities and the Council's recognition that additional growth is inevitable beyond 2033, the Local Plan should ensure that additional land is removed from the Green Belt and safeguarded to meet longer term development needs.
This will ensure that the Local Plan provides for new defensible boundaries for future generations in accordance with Policy NE13, criterion B.
Other recently adopted Local Plans with similar levels of Green Belt coverage and future growth pressures have amended Green Belt boundaries to identify safeguarded land, for instance see South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document or Warwick District Local Plan.

As a co-landowner of site HELAA Ref: 076, the subject of Policy R26, Land North of Orchard Piece, Blackmore, I agree that this site is suitable for Green Belt release in order to provide new homes for the local community and to ensure development is not limited to the centre and south of the Borough. The current pre-submission document is both a sound plan and legally compliant. It is the result of a positively framed, technically researched, participatory process that began some ten years ago. I support the sequential land-use approach, in particular Policy NE9 8.88 "development in the Green Belt will be deemed necessary to support rural economies, to ensure the sustainability of villages"(p228) and Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt 8.115 "New housing development in these locations will provide for a range of needs as advised by evidence, such as the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment, and local housing strategy. This could be to provide starter homes,...and smaller units, for example to allow older people to have a realistic option to downsize and free up larger homes for families" (p238). Policy R26 supports item 2.8 "To promote sustainable growth in rural areas, the NPPF (2018) paragraph 78 states that housing in rural areas should be located where it will enhance the vitality of rural communities, to ensure villages grow and thrive." (p21) The last development in the village of Blackmore took place in the 1960s, Policy R26 would serve to:  update the housing stock to meet new design and energy efficient features (SP01: Sustainable development);  increase housing in a larger village to meet local needs in the next 15 years (SP02: Managing growth);  Provide mixed housing, with some smaller units in a desirable setting that will encourage social interaction (HP01). I do not agree that the allocation of Policy R26 has been reduced from 40 to 30 units as there is an acute need at a local level for both private and affordable housing, and there is no technical justification for this change. According to Policy HP03 "Residential development proposals will generally be expected to achieve a net density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare net or higher.." Accordingly the net area of this site (1.52 hectares) this would equate to around 53 units. Therefore, given the need to provide sufficient housing supply for the coming 15 years an allocation of approximately 40 units should be reinstated. We chose to work with Crest Nicholson, a locally based national award winning house builder, in the knowledge that Crest has the capability to effectively deliver housing of a high standard within the next two years. (SP:06 p60). Crest has the construction management design and expertise (SP:05 p58) to provide the housing needed, while preserving and enhancing the character and settlement of Blackmore. (SP:01) In response to some comments from local residents, I would like to add that our site has not been used for arable farming owing to the quality of the soil. It faces Redrose Farm, once a dairy farm owned by our grandparents. Some of the agricultural land was sold to build Orchard Piece. The availability of new housing meant that we were able to live close by to our grandparents. Redrose Lane is at the outer edge of the village and our site lies within the village boundary. Policy R26 will give priority to those with "demonstrable local connection and those over 50". The latter is also important as there is insufficient housing stock for down-sizing in Blackmore.
In over 60 years of family ownership, we have not experienced flooding on our land. Furthermore it should be noted that a development on this site would lead to a betterment in the management of surface water discharge rates. Land North of Orchard Piece, Policy R26, is a discrete site of only 1.52 hectares and represents a natural boundary to the settlement and release of this site for a small housing development would provide a boost to the village of Blackmore

Section 09: (Site Allocation)
- Policy R25, 9.197 - 9.200
- Policy R26, 9.201 - 9.204



Section 04: (Managing Growth)
- Policy SP01 - D (a) and D (f)
- Para 4.9
- Para 4.2
- Policy SP02

Section 08: (Natural Environment)
- Policy NE06, 8.5 - 8.64
- Para 8.85 (iv)
- Para 8.90
- Para 8.101
- Policy NE13

The Local Plan is not compliant per the below:
* NPPF Sect 2 8.a.b.c - to meet local need, accessible services -does not comply
* NPPF Sect 3 28 - local community has been ignored rather than included
* NPPF Sect 5 77/78 - decisions should be 'responsive to local circumstances' and 'reflect local needs'. There is no proven need for these houses
* NPPF Sect 9 103 - Development should be focused on locations, limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of travel modes. Blackmore is approximately 7 miles form the nearest train station so private cars will have to used to commute via narrow country lanes
* NPPF Sect 14 -the area floods (my next door neighbors house flooded in June 2016). No focused flood risk assessment has been carried out
* NPPF Sect 15 174/175 - to protect and enhance biodiversity.
* NPPF 16 - Conserving the historic environment. R25 and R26 have two Grade 2 listed buildings on the boundary of the development. Red Rose Lane being the point of access for both developments was built as a local 'plague road' from the time of the Black Death
* Location needs to be re-assessed. There is no proven need that Blackmore need this number of houses being distant from transport links and there being hardly any local employment.
* Develop a strategic approach to the Villages north of Brentwood by consultation.
* Detailed flood risk analysis required.
* Assess smaller scale brownfield developments within the area to cater for local need if any is proven.
* Re-assess the development of sites around the transport hubs (Brentwood, Dunton, etc.) rather than rural villages not near mainline rail.

SCHOOL! This is a local village one form entry school, which is already oversubscribed. More houses equal more children.
TRAFFIC! Blackmore is already congested with cars and for parking, We do not want more traffic spoiling this beautiful village.
GP. Already overcrowded and will be put under more strain.
There is not a need for more houses here in such a small village

Section 09 - R25 and R26
What plans have been made for surrounding infrastructure?
Which other sites in Essex have been identified?
Asking residents door to door
Green Belt land is identified as green belt for a reason. There are other areas that can be built on which do not impact on small already strained village.

SCHOOL! This is a local village one form entry school, which is already oversubscribed. More houses equal more children.
TRAFFIC! Blackmore is already congested with cars and for parking, We do not want more traffic spoiling this beautiful village.
GP. Already overcrowded and will be put under more strain.
There is not a need for more houses here in such a small village

Section 09: (Site Allocation)
- Policy R25, 9.197 - 9.200
- Policy R26, 9.201 - 9.204
Section 04: (Managing Growth)
- Policy SP01 - D (a) and D (f)
- Para 4.9
- Para 4.2
- Policy SP02
Section 08: (Natural Environment)
- Policy NE06, 8.5 - 8.64
- Para 8.85 (iv)
- Para 8.90
- Para 8.101
- Policy NE13

Remove sites R25 and R26 from plan

Section 09: (Site Allocation)
- Policy R25, 9.197 - 9.200
- Policy R26, 9.201 - 9.204



Section 04: (Managing Growth)
- Policy SP01 - D (a) and D (f)
- Para 4.9
- Para 4.2
- Policy SP02

Section 08: (Natural Environment)
- Policy NE06, 8.5 - 8.64
- Para 8.85 (iv)
- Para 8.90
- Para 8.101
- Policy NE13


Unsound; Not compliant with Duty to Cooperate; all reasons unsound.
Written representation only.

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

Amend to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing.

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

delete criterion A

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.

Amend 'will be' in criterion B to 'are'.

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.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Bidwells on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to Brentwood Borough Council's (hereafter referred to as "BBC") public consultation on the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan ("the emerging Plan") in respect of land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood ("the Site").
1.2 Crest Nicholson Eastern controls the entirety of the Site which is the subject of a proposed allocation in the emerging Plan under Policy R06 for the development of around 125 dwellings. Primarily, the consultation seeks responses regarding the soundness of the emerging Plan as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
1.3 Our comments on the emerging Plan are made having regard to the NPPF, which at paragraph 35 states "Plans are considered sound if they are:
● Positively prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
● Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
● Effective - deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on crossboundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the
statement of common ground; and
● Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework."
1.4 Accordingly, these representations:
● Support the principle of the proposed allocation of land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood under Policy R06 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified and consistent with national policy; and
● Object to the allocation's indicative dwelling capacity because it would be unnecessarily restrictive of the deliverable quantum of development and is therefore ineffective. 1.5 Our response to the emerging Plan policies is provided within this report and in the enclosed completed Comments Form at Appendix 1. A discussion of the deliverability of the Site drawing upon technical evidence from the accompanying Design Development Framework prepared by Clague Architects (March 2019) is attached at Appendix 2 of these representations. 1.6 We formally request that our recommended amendment is taken into account for the Regulation 22 submission to the Secretary of State and, in accordance with Section 20(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, hereby formally request that Crest Nicholson Eastern is invited to participate at all hearing sessions relevant to Land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood. Written representations prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson Easterm In respect of Policy R06: Land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood
2.0 Support for the Spatial Policies
Chapter 2. A Borough of Villages
Settlement Hierarchy
2.1 Brentwood falls within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy, the highest-ranking settlement type. Paragraph 2.12 identifies that Brentwood and Shenfield "offer the most scope for development in accordance with sustainable development principles. Urban extensions into the Green Belt are proposed in specific locations with clear physical boundaries and accessible to local services and transport links."
2.2 Description of Category 1 sites appropriately aligns with the characteristics of Brentwood, in that it provides a wide range of services and employment opportunities, is highly accessible and well served by public transport. We consider Brentwood's placement at the top of the Settlement Hierarchy as appropriate.
2.3 Figure 2.3 (Settlement Hierarchy) states that development opportunities in Category 1 settlements including Brentwood "should focus on making the best use of land, with a higher density". We agree with this approach because it would ensure that the development potential of such suitable sites, including Land at Nags Head Lane, is maximised.
Chapter 3. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic
Objectives
Housing Need
2.4 Housing need is discussed at paragraphs 3.7 - 3.9. In planning for residential growth, the emerging Plan states its commitment to planning positively to increase the supply of new homes. The emerging Plan states it will allocate land to exceed the identified local housing need to provide flexibility in the supply and delivery of sites.
2.5 We support the approach to significantly boost the supply of new housing because it demonstrates that the Plan is positively prepared. This should mean that at the site-specific level, allocations for development, including the Land at Nags Head Lane, should seek to deliver the maximum quantum of development possible, taking account of site constraints and masterplans where applicable.
Transit-orientated Growth and the Growth Areas
2.6 Paragraphs 3.11 and 3.21-3.22 recognise the existing pattern of development and the presence of two key infrastructure corridors and that these inform the spatial approach to growth in the emerging Plan. These are the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, comprised of the A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street and the new Elizabeth Line; and the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor comprised of the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
2.7 Allocating development in these transit corridors ensures that new homes will be sustainably located, linked to existing service centres through proximity and accessibility to strategic transport infrastructure. We consider this an appropriate strategy.
2.8 Allocation of Land at Nags Head Lane fits appropriately with this approach because it falls within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor. The Bull bus stop is less than 100m from the Site, with routes into Brentwood town centre and Romford. The Site is less than 2 miles from Brentwood town centre and is within 500m of local shops, pubs and a health club. The site is easily accessible from the A12 and M25 and avoids directing vehicular traffic via the town centre of Brentwood. It is therefore a highly suitable site, sustainably located, with accessibility to a wide range of services, facilities and sources of employment reflected in its location within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy.
Borough Gateways
2.9 In considering spatial development principles, paragraphs 3.25 - 3.26 set out the aspiration for key allocations to deliver gateways that contribute to enhancing a positive impression of the Borough through public art and/or public realm improvements. Figure 3.3 identifies key gateway locations where developments within the local vicinity should enhance the positive impression of Brentwood upon arrival and for those passing by. We note this inclusion, also noting that Land at Nags Head Lane is located close to the east of the identified gateway at Brook Street. We acknowledge this policy intention and Crest Nicholson is prepared to make proportionate and reasonable contributions to enhancements to the Brook Street gateway as part of a planning permission for development of the site.
2.10 Paragraph 3.26 further recognises that sites in key gateway locations offer an opportunity to deliver schemes with higher densities. We support this intention because it would make efficient use of land in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 122 and 123.
Chapter 4. Managing Growth
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
2.11 This policy seeks to direct development to the site allocations set out in the Local Plan and within the highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Land at Nags Head Lane would accord with both of these principles, so we support this policy.
Chapter 6. Housing Provision
Policy HP03: Residential Density
2.12 Pursuant to the above, this policy seeks to define appropriate residential development densities with the caveat that individual schemes should employ a design-led approach to determine an appropriate, site-specific density. Generally, a density of 35 dwellings per hectare or higher will be sought on sites outside of town centres, district shopping centres and local centres. We consider that adopting standards such as this is appropriate, because it would ensure that land is used as efficiently as possible, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 123 which seeks to avoid houses being built at low densities in areas where there is an existing shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, such as Brentwood.
Chapter 8. Natural Environment
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt
2.13 We support the release of sites from the Green Belt for development as a justified approach given the lack of alternatives in the Borough. This is consistent with national policy, namely paragraph 136 of the NPPF, which makes allowance for the alteration of Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or updating of Plans where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.14 BBC recognises that exceptional circumstances exist and warrant the release of Green Belt to accommodate the Borough's housing need. As the Borough does not have any non-Green Belt greenfield land that falls outside of existing settlement boundaries, it falls on Green Belt land to accommodate a proportion of the overall housing requirement. BBC does not have sufficient available brownfield land that could deliver the Borough's housing requirements in a manner that would accord with other policy objectives. It would not be possible to develop brownfield sites alone at such high densities in a manner that would not cause detrimental impacts to the Borough's character or compromise the ability to deliver a broad mix of housing in accordance with Strategic
Objectives including SO1 and SO3.
2.15 Land at Nags Head Lane represents an entirely logical development site as an urban extension to development on the south-west of Brentwood. Physically enclosed between Nags Head Lane, the A1023, existing business and residential units and the railway line, the Site makes a "moderate" contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt according to the BBC Green Belt Study (November 2018). It should however be noted that the assessments of alternative sites range predominantly from moderate to high and the Site is therefore among the least sensitive performing Green Belt sites against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, justifying its release for allocation. Releasing sites such as this takes pressure from other land parcels that perform a more important Green Belt function and minimises the impact on the Green Belt as far as is possible, consistent with national policy.
3.0 Comments on Policy R06: Land at Nags Head
Lane, Brentwood
In Principle Support
3.1 We fully support the principle of allocating this Site for development. Crest Nicholson Eastern is committed to the delivery of the Site in accordance with policy criteria B (Development Principles) and C (Infrastructure Requirements) as discussed in greater detail below.
The Site is strategically well-placed
3.2 The Site is located on the south-western edge of Brentwood, in the south-west of the Borough. Firmly within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, the Site is well connected to strategic transport infrastructure comprised of the A12, linking to Chelmsford in the north-east and Romford to the south-west, and the Great Eastern Mainline railway to London Liverpool Street. Brentwood benefits from a station on this railway line, which is approximately 1.7 miles from the Site. The new Elizabeth Line will also serve this corridor with a station in Brentwood, providing further connections across London to Reading and Heathrow to the west. The site accords with the Local Plan's strategic objectives by locating development in the growth areas and main transit corridors.
3.3 The Site is located close to the key gateway location at the junction of the A12 and the M25 as identified in Figure 3.3 of the emerging Plan. Development on the edge of Brentwood would positively contribute to the sense of arrival to the town and this Site would represent an obvious candidate to fulfil BBC's Local Plan aspiration to contribute towards enhancing a positive impression of the Borough. Crest Nicholson Eastern is committed to ensuring this will be achieved at the appropriate stage of developing the proposals.
The Site is suitable
3.4 The site is served by local shops, pubs, restaurants and a health club within a 5-minute walk. There are bus stops located opposite the site with routes into the town centre, less than 2 miles away. Land at Nags Head Lane therefore benefits from excellent sustainability credentials, reflected in BBC's decision to allocate the site for residential development.
3.5 The site is very well enclosed with established permanent boundaries on all sides. It is bounded to the west by Nags Head Lane, the south by a railway cutting, the east by existing dwellings at Mascalls Gardens, and the north by commercial uses and residential plots. The site consists of private fields sub-divided by established trees and hedgerows, making only a "moderate" contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt according to the BBC Green Belt Study (November 2018). It should be noted that the assessments of alternative sites range predominantly from moderate to high and the Site is therefore among the least sensitive performing Green Belt sites against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt Contribution towards the 5-year housing land supply
3.6 We note that the Housing Trajectory contained in Appendix 1 of the emerging Plan anticipates housing delivery of the allocation from the years 2021/22 to 2025/26. As the accompanying Design Development Framework demonstrates that the Site is unencumbered in all respects, we consider that development could be delivered even earlier than this but nevertheless BBC's trajectory still falls within the five-year housing supply timeframe, so we concur with its general assumption and its accordance with NPPF paragraph 73 which seeks local planning authorities to identify an adequate supply of housing in the short term.
Crest Nicholson's credentials
3.7 The Site is controlled in its entirety by Crest Nicholson Eastern and is available and deliverable now to contribute to meeting the local housing need requirements in the emerging Plan and BBC's five-year housing land supply. Crest Nicholson is based locally in Brentwood and has a 50-year heritage of delivering community focused development. Crest prides itself on its focus for high quality design which has been recognised in its awards for National Housebuilder of the Year, twice in the last three years. Other recent accolades include Planning Magazine's Best National Housing Scheme over 500 homes, Evening Standard's Best Small Development and the Sunday Times' winner of the Outstanding Housing and Landscaping category.
Compliance with the draft Policy's Development Principles
3.8 Policy R06 sets out policy criteria to be considered when developing detailed proposals for the Site. These are set out in bold text below and are fully supported, with the exception of criterion A which is not listed here because it is discussed separately from paragraph 3.16 below. Our design response is summarised beneath each criterion:
B. Development Principles
a. Vehicular access via Nags Head Lane.
The accompanying Design Development Framework demonstrates that a suitable vehicular access would be achievable via Nags Head Lane.
b. Provision for pedestrian and cycle connections.
The Design Development Framework shows that a network of pedestrian and cycle connections would be provided.
c. Provision for public open space.
The indicative masterplan shows that a network of high quality public open space ould be provided.
d. Provide for sensitive landscaping along the north and eastern boundaries adjoining existing commercial development and residential dwellings Extensive landscaping is integral to the proposals for the Site, predominantly focused on the boundaries and along strategic green infrastructure corridors within the Site linking the public open spaces. The indicative masterplan shows green buffering along the northern and eastern boundaries adjoining existing commercial and residential development.
C. Infrastructure Requirements
a. The site is located within a Critical Drainage Area. This development may have the potential to impact on the Critical Drainage Area in respect of surface water flooding. As a result of this, the site is likely to require an individually designed mitigation scheme to address this issue.
The proposed drainage strategy for the Site includes Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) such as permeable paving, swales and ponds to alleviate the risk of surface water flooding associated with the Site's location within a Critical Drainage Area.
The allocation is deliverable
3.9 The accompanying indicative masterplan demonstrates that a scheme for approximately 150 new homes could be delivered on the Site. This takes account of specialist evidence in respect of landscape, access, utilities, drainage, noise and heritage as summarised in the accompanying Design Development Framework.
3.10 The masterplan proposes to retain and enhance the existing vegetation structure along the southern boundary of the Site, along Nags Head Lane to provide a robust edge to the development parcel and filter views into the Site, incorporate a sequence of open spaces and SuDS, retain the internal tree and hedgerow structure where appropriate as part of the internal network of green corridors and to plant trees along contours to filter views from the north (across the valley) and to contribute to amenity value within the Site.
3.11 In respect of access, the potential impact of development traffic on the operation of the Brook Street/Nags Head Lane/Wigley Bush Lane signal junction has been assessed. Whilst the forecast increase in traffic through the junction would be imperceptible, consideration has been given to modifications to improve the future operation of this junction. A proposed improvement scheme has been assessed, which comprises an additional short lane for ahead and left traffic on the Wigley Bush Lane approach, increased kerb radius and exit taper for the left turn into Wigley Bush Lane that allows the stop line to be moved closer to the junction, and a pedestrian crossing on the eastern arm of Brook Street. Junction capacity analysis has shown that the proposed improvements would more than mitigate the impact of development traffic, the result being an overall net benefit to junction capacity. The scheme would be compliant with policy guidance on transport and land use planning at both a national and local level and would have a positive impact in terms of junction capacity and pedestrian connectivity.
3.12 National Grid has confirmed a High Pressure (HP) Gas Main runs beneath the south west corner of the Site. The illustrative masterplan shows that a 28m corridor has been provided above the HP Main to allow for future access and maintenance and limit the risk of damage to the main. Following discussions with National Grid, the Health and Safety Executive has confirmed in writing that they would not object to the current indicative layout if submitted seeking planning permission.
3.13 A preliminary noise assessment has been undertaken to assess impacts arising from primary noise sources on the M25, A12, A1023, Nags Head Lane and railway noise from the adjacent Great Eastern Mainline. The preliminary assessment shows that no single noise source is dominant and that with appropriate layout and noise treatment to the most exposed properties, both internal and external ambient noise levels would be within the desirable range and would meet with applicable
standards.
3.14 The above demonstrates that Crest Nicholson has given due consideration to the deliverability of the allocation and proposes a responsive and well-designed masterplan.
3.15 Taking account of the above we fully support the principle of the Site's proposed allocation.
Objection to the amount of development
3.16 Policy criterion A. states that the site will provide "around 125 new homes of mixed size and type". We consider that this underplays the deliverable quantum of development the Site could accommodate and therefore object to this strand of the policy requirement because the Policy is
ineffective.
3.17 The Site has been proposed for allocation in the emerging Plan since the Draft Regulation 18 iteration published for consultation in 2016, but the original draft allocation was for the delivery of around 150 dwellings. Indeed, if the residential density standard of 35 dwellings per hectare from Policy HP03 is applied to the net developable area identified in the draft allocation of 4.35 hectares, the indicative dwelling yield would be 152.25 dwellings per hectare.
3.18 As emerging Policy HP03 requires (as we have discussed at para 2.12 above), a design-led approach to determining the appropriate, site-specific residential development density has been undertaken for the Site. The accompanying Design Development Framework articulates how approximately 150 dwellings could be delivered on the Site in a generously landscaped scheme incorporating a network of public open space incorporating SuDS features and a locally equipped area of play.
3.19 The BBC Sustainability Appraisal (SA) provides justification for the reduction in units onsite. At paragraph 9.7.2 it states:
"Focusing on proposed changes to the spatial strategy since 2016, points to note are -
● The proposal to reduce the number of homes delivered at Land east of Nag's Head
Lane is supported, given proximity to several listed buildings at Brook Street."
3.20 And at 9.10.2 it states:
"Finally, it is noted that a decision was taken to reduce the quantum of homes (C3) delivered at all four of the Green Belt sites proposed by the 2016 Draft Plan, namely Land off Doddinghurst Road, Land east of Nags Head Lane, Land at Honeypot Lane and Officers Meadow. The Landscape Cpacity Study finds three of these sites to have "medium" capacity, such that a decision to reduce the quantum of homes is tentatively supported; however, Land off Doddinghurst Road is identified as having "medium-high" landscape capacity."
3.21 We consider that these statements are not justified. Whilst the Nag's Head Inn is a Grade II listed building, the Built Heritage Assessment previously submitted with our Regulation 18 representations demonstrates that it once stood as a rural building surrounded by fields and outside the tiny hamlet of Brook Street, but today it is experienced as a road-side public house in the vicinity of residential and commercial development. The area to the south of the Inn, where the Site is located, is still characterised by fields subdivided by hedgerows and trees, however the visual relationship between the Inn and the fields that make up the Site is far less apparent since
topographical features, such as thick hedgerow that border Nags Head Lane, obscure the views. Furthermore, the significance of the Inn is considered to lie within its historical and architectural value. The visual relationship between the Inn and the Site is far less than the visual connectionbetween the Inn and the fields to the south-west, which are directly behind the listed building.
3.22 Accordingly, the impact of Crest Nicholson's accompanying development proposals, with mitigation incorporating retained vegetation, contouring and open green space close to the listed building, mean that the visual impact of the setting of the listed building would be minimal, resulting in only a minor level of less than substantial harm. Given the need to promote sustainable patterns of development when Green Belt boundaries are being re-drawn (NPPF para 138), we consider the arbitrary reduction in unit numbers is not properly justified and should be amended to reflect what could reasonably be achieved on the site, taking account of Crest Nicholson's masterplanned approach.
3.23 With landscape considerations at the forefront of the design process, delivery of approximately 150 dwellings on the Site is demonstrated to the fully achievable without significant harm to the landscape in the accompanying Design Development Framework. Contained within the Design Development Framework is a summary of a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, setting out the key landscape characteristics and the principal considerations for the identification of opportunities and constraints on the Site. This LVIA concludes that the scheme can deliver approximately 150 dwellings whilst mitigating landscape impacts effectively. The detail of the design approach taken to achieve this is discussed further in the section below.
3.24 Having taken the above design-led approach and determined that a quantum of development of approximately 150 dwellings is entirely achievable, the emerging Plan allocation should reflect this in order to ensure best use of land and maximise the development potential. The policies we have commented on above demonstrate a clear intention of BBC to seek to deliver dwellings beyond the local housing need target and this is reflected in national policy, where the NPPF requires the highest density possible on sites, particularly in areas where the land supply is significantly constrained as is the case in the predominantly Green Belt Borough of Brentwood.
3.25 We are aware that since the earlier iterations of the emerging Plan, the quantum of development proposed in the Dunton Hills Garden Village strategic allocation has increased from 2,500 dwellings in the emerging Plan period to 2,700. Other allocations, including this site which is deliverable in the short-term, should similarly seek to maximise delivery in line with the residential density standards and the design-led approach in Policy HP03 as the appropriate method for assessing the deliverable dwelling yield.
3.26 We recommend that Policy R06 reinstates the Draft Local Plan allocation quantum of approximately 150 dwellings. This would ensure that the emerging Plan is positively prepared in its ambition to maximise the delivery of new homes above and beyond the local housing need target, justified in its strategy for ensuring the best use of land for development and consistent with national policy in delivering an optimum residential density, particularly in an area with a significantly constrained land supply.
Changes necessary to make the Plan sound
3.27 Taking account of the above, we recommend that Policy R06 criterion A reinstates the Draft Local Plan's proposed quantum of development for the Site. Accordingly, it should say "provision for approximately 150 new homes of mixed size and type".
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Crest Nicholson Eastern in response to BBC's emerging Plan consultation in respect of the Site.
4.2 Crest Nicholson controls the land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood, which is proposed for allocation under Policy R06.
4.3 We:
● Support the principle of the proposed allocation of Land at Nags Head Lane, Brentwood under Policy R06 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified and consistent with national policy; and
● Object to the allocation's indicative dwelling capacity because it would be unnecessarily restrictive of the deliverable quantum of development and is therefore ineffective.
4.4 We fully support the principle of the allocation of the Site as a positively prepared and justified policy. Allocating sites to exceed the identified local housing need is consistent with national policy, whereby housing targets are viewed as a minimum and should be exceeded where possible to ensure flexibility in housing delivery. The Site is a logical and sustainable development site to contribute dwellings towards achieving the Local Plan strategy, well related to the settlement of Brentwood and within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor with excellent links to strategic transport infrastructure.
4.5 We object to the quantum of development quoted in the Site allocation. The Site has been included as an allocation in the emerging Plan since 2016 and the original allocation planned for 150 dwellings, based on our masterplanned approach to development set out in the accompanying Development Framework Document. The reduction to 125 dwellings in the Pre-Submission Local Plan does not align with the technical evidence and design work accompanying these representations, that demonstrates that the Site can appropriately accommodate approximately 150 dwellings taking account of the site-specific constraints and opportunities. In light of emerging Plan Policy HP03, the density of development should be maximised through a design-led approach. The quoted quantum of 125 dwellings also falls short of the standard density figure of 35 dwellings per hectare stated in Policy HP03.
4.6 In order to make the Local Plan sound, we recommend that BBC reinstates the Preferred Options draft Local Plan quantum of the proposed Site allocation to approximately 150 dwellings, to make better use of the land and maximise delivery.
4.7 Subject to the above amendment, we consider the emerging Local Plan satisfies the tests for soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

1.0 Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust ("EPUT") in response to Brentwood Borough Council's ("BBC") public consultation on the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan ("the emerging Plan") in respect of land off Warley Hill, Warley ("the Site"). The land the subject of these representations is shown on the accompanying Site Location Plan at Appendix 1.
1.2 EPUT owns the Site which is the subject of a proposed allocation in the emerging Plan for the development of around 43 dwellings. Primarily, the consultation seeks responses regarding the soundness of the emerging Plan as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in February 2019.
1.3 Our comments on the emerging Plan are made having regard to the NPPF, which at paragraph 35 states "Plans are considered sound if they are:
● Positively prepared - providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area's objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
● Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
● Effective - deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on rossboundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
● Consistent with national policy - enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework."
1.4 Accordingly, these representations fully support the proposed allocation of land off Warley Hill under Policy R09 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
1.5 Our response to the emerging Plan's strategic policies is provided below in the following section, with our comments on the proposed site allocation at Policy R09 thereafter. These representations are supported by:
● A completed version of the Comments Form at Appendix 2 of this report; and
● Urban Design Strategy at Appendix 3 of this report.
2.0 Our Support for the Strategic Policies
Chapter 2. A Borough of Villages
Settlement Hierarchy
2.1 Warley falls within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy, the highest anking settlement type. Paragraph 2.11 identifies that the Brentwood Urban Area, which includes Warley, and Shenfield offer the most scope for growth in accordance with sustainable development principles. Urban extensions into the Green Belt are proposed in specific locations with clear physical boundaries and accessible to local services and transport links.
2.2 Category 1 sites are described in Figure 2.3 as "providing a wide range of services and opportunities for employment, retail, education, health and leisure facilities to the immediate residential areas as well as to the wider population in the borough. They are typically highly accessible and well served by public transport provision, including rail services, and existing infrastructure."
2.3 This description appropriately aligns with the characteristics of Warley as part of the Brentwood Urban Area, in that it provides a wide range of services and employment opportunities, is highly accessible and well served by public transport - this is demonstrated by being only 800m from Brentwood mainline / Crossrail station. We consider that Brentwood Urban Area's placement at the top of the Settlement Hierarchy, including Warley, is appropriate and justified.
Chapter 3. Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic
Objectives
Housing Need
2.4 Housing need is discussed at paragraphs 3.7 - 3.9 of the consultation document. In planning for residential growth, the emerging Plan states its commitment to planning positively to increase the supply of new homes. The emerging Plan states it will allocate land to exceed the identified local housing need to provide flexibility in the supply and delivery of sites. We support the approach to significantly boost the supply of new housing because it demonstrates that the Plan is positively prepared.
2.5 The flexibility benefits of allocating sites to exceed the identified local housing need can only be realised if the supply of those sites is not unduly restricted to arbitrary time periods. The Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory identifies anticipated delivery timescales for allocated sites, but this should not prejudice the early delivery of sites anticipated to be built out later in the emerging Local Plan period. In order to be considered positively prepared, allocated sites should be delivered as soon as they are available.
Transit-orientated Growth and the Growth Areas
2.6 Paragraphs 3.11 and 3.21-3.22 recognise the existing pattern of development and the presence of two key infrastructure corridors and that these inform the spatial approach to growth in the emerging Plan. These are the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, comprised of the A12, the Great Eastern Main Line to London Liverpool Street and the new Elizabeth Line/Crossrail; and the Southern Brentwood Growth Corridor comprised of the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station.
2.7 Allocating development in these transit corridors ensures that new homes will be sustainably located, linked to existing service centres through proximity and accessibility to strategic transport infrastructure. We consider this an appropriate and justified strategy.
2.8 Allocation of Land off Warley Hill fits appropriately with this approach because it is located within the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, approximately 800 metres from Brentwood mainline / Elizabeth line/Crossrail station. Warley Hill, Albert Street and Walter Boyce Centre bus stops are all less than 100m from the Site, with routes into Brentwood town centre and Romford. The Site is less than 2 miles from Brentwood town centre, which offers public transport routes to Grays, South Ockendon, Chelmsford city centre, Basildon town centre, Billericay and Shenfield among other destinations. It is within 300m of a local supermarket, petrol station, sandwich bar, GP surgery, primary school and employment opportunities. The site is easily accessible from the A12 and M25.
2.9 Land off Warley Hill is therefore a highly suitable site, sustainably located in the heart of the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, with accessibility to a wide range of services, facilities and sources of employment reflected in its location within Settlement Category 1 in the emerging Plan Settlement Hierarchy. With such infrastructure already in place around the Site, delivery of dwellings can commence imminently, and the Site should not be held back to latter parts of the emerging Local Plan period in line with the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory.
Chapter 4. Managing Growth
Policy SP01 Sustainable Development
2.10 This policy advocates a positive approach to considering developments that accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF. Clearly this is consistent with national policy and we support this approach. Paragraph C of the policy aligns with the NPPF requirement for development that accords with the emerging Local Plan to be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Land off Warley Hill is a proposed allocation and a planning application brought forward for the development of the site in accordance with this and should therefore be approved without delay.
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
2.11 This policy seeks to direct development to the site allocations set out in the Local Plan and within the highly accessible locations along transit/growth corridors. Land off Warley Hill would accord with both of these principles, so we support this policy.
Chapter 8. Natural Environment
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt (8.113)
2.12 We support the release of sites from the Green Belt for development as a justified approach given the lack of alternatives in the Borough. This is consistent with national policy, namely paragraph 136 of the NPPF, which makes allowance for the alteration of Green Belt boundaries through the preparation or updating of Plans where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.13 BBC recognises that Green Belt release is necessary to meet the Borough's housing needs. BBC has insufficient available brownfield land within existing urban areas to deliver this need. It falls on Green Belt land to accommodate a proportion of the overall housing requirement. Within this context it therefore follows that the most suitable available brownfield sites within the Green Belt should be allocated for residential development.
2.14 Land off Warley Hill represents an entirely suitable development site as an urban extension to development on the south of Brentwood Urban Area. With existing residential and commercial development to the south and east, the former Warley Hospital buildings to the north-west and Pastoral Way to the north, the Site is identified as making only a "moderate" contribution to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt according to the BBC Green Belt Study (November 2018). It should be noted that the assessments of alternative sites range predominantly from moderate to high and the Site is therefore among the least sensitive performing Green Belt sites against the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, justifying its release for allocation.
Releasing sites such as this takes pressure from other land parcels that perform a more important Green Belt function and minimises the impact on the Green Belt as far as is possible, consistent with national policy.
3.0 Our Support for Policy R09: Land off Warley Hill
3.1 We fully support the allocation of this Site for residential development and EPUT is committed to the delivery of the Site in accordance with the criteria set out in policy R09. This is for the reasons elow.
The Site is surplus to NHS requirements
3.2 The Site is sustainably located, previously developed, surplus to its former public sector requirements and is currently vacant. It contains 6 buildings with associated outbuildings and structures. These buildings were formerly used to support the provision of NHS services and was formerly part of the wider Warley Hospital site that has now been redeveloped for housing. The Site was originally developed in the 1930s and initially provided staff accommodation but more recently the existing buildings have also been used for various NHS health care-related purposes, including a drop-in service and care for people with learning difficulties. This was the case up until February 2012 when the need for the facility by the NHS ceased and the properties were vacated.
3.3 Essex Partnership University NHS Trust (EPUT) currently maintains the Site but the prolonged vacancy has increased the risk of the following issues occurring:
● Vandalism of the buildings;
● Anti-social behaviour;
● Unauthorised occupation of the buildings;
● Neighbouring amenity being jeopardised;
● Vermin nuisance to local residents; and/or
● Landscaping / trees becoming overgrown.
3.4 These are practical reasons to support the redevelopment of the Site in the short term. In addition, maintaining and securing the current buildings costs the NHS money and these finances may be better used in a positive way to support improved healthcare services. The Site's removal from the Green Belt is fully justified
3.5 We support the Site's removal from the Green Belt because this is consistent with national planning policy. BBC recognises that exceptional circumstances exist and warrant the release of Green Belt to accommodate the Borough's housing need, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 135. Furthermore, development of the site would contribute towards sustainable patterns of development because the site is located within the heart of the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, consistent with NPPF paragraph 138, and adjacent to the existing development boundary of the Brentwood Urban Area.
3.6 Paragraph 139 of the NPPF states "when defining Green Belt boundaries, plans should...define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent." The B186, Warley Hill, along the Site's eastern boundary, currently forms the Green Belt boundary. The Site is bounded to the west by Clement's Wood, designated as an ancient woodland, secondary woodland habitat and a Local Wildlife Site (LoWS) as described in the Brentwood Borough Local Wildlife Site Review (2012). The woodland's designated status on the western boundary of the Site provides certainty that the redefinition of the Green Belt boundary would follow this feature would be strong, recognisable and permanent, in accordance with NPPF paragraph 139. For ease of reference, we have included an extract of the designated site.
Above: Extract from BBC's Local Wildlife Site Review: Bre61 Clement's Wood - the Site is adjacent to eastern boundary of Clement's Wood.
3.7 The Site is controlled in its entirety by EPUT and is available and deliverable now to contribute to meeting the local housing need requirements in the emerging Plan and BBC's five-year housing land supply. The deliverability of the masterplan proposals for the Site is demonstrated further in the section below.
Compliance with Policy R09's Development Principles
3.8 The extract below shows the allocation within the consultation document:
3.9 Policy R09 also sets out specific Development Principles to be considered when developing detailed proposals for the Site. These are set out and underlined below and we fully support them. Our design response is summarised beneath each criterion:
A. Amount and Type of Development
a. provision for around 43 new homes of mixed size and type:
We fully support this quantum of development and the accompanying Urban Design Strategy demonstrates the deliverability of this quantum of development on the Site.
B. Development Principles
a. vehicular access via Pastoral Way:
The accompanying masterplan in the Urban Design Strategy confirms that vehicular access would be provided via Pastoral Way, where there is a current vehicle access into the Site.
b. preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings:
The Heritage Assessment (summarised within the Urban Design Strategy) concludes that The Firs and Lyndhurst buildings are not listed and can be demolished and Shenleigh, Bramley and Beeches buildings are curtilage listed but are relatively ordinary in appearance and can be demolished. Greenwoods is similarly listed and of architectural value, so is proposed for retention within the scheme. The Tower House at Warley Hospital is also a grade II listed structure and the masterplan includes extensive tree belts and open space in its vicinity to preserve the setting.
c. provide for sensitive landscaping throughout the site and consider the need for the retention of some existing trees on site where appropriate:
The masterplan shows a generously landscaped scheme, with existing trees of value retained and the provision of open space and landscaping throughout.
C. Infrastructure Requirements
a. the site is located within a Critical Drainage Area. This development may have the potential to impact on the Critical Drainage Area in respect of surface water flooding. As a result of this, the site is likely to require an individually designed mitigation scheme to address this issue:
The inclusion of significant areas of landscaping and open space provides opportunities o deliver a bespoke drainage strategy on the Site, which would be designed in detail at he appropriate stage of the development of the proposals.
Constraints and Opportunities
3.10 The accompanying Urban Design Strategy provides an assessment of the opportunities and constraints of the Site, summarised by the following key points:
● Green Belt: The Site is currently located within the Green Belt although the emerging Local Plan proposes its removal and allocation for residential development.
● Arboriculture: There are significant existing trees on the Site with related constraints, particularly Category A and B to be retained and the presence of Tree Preservation Order TPO 10/91. Presence of Ancient Woodland within Clement's Wood.
● Heritage: Presence of heritage building 'Greenwoods' and the setting of the Listed Victorian Water Tower, both of which are considered worthy of retention.
● Biodiversity and open space: There are opportunities to enhance the biodiversity offering on the Site and potentially through the retention of existing green open space. Bats, birds and breeding mammals surveys are necessary which may determine further ecological constraints. These surveys would be undertaken at an appropriate stage of the development of the proposals.
● Cyclists and pedestrians: It is necessary to provide adequate circulation routes and provision for cyclists and pedestrians. Pedestrian connections to Warley Hill are necessary for pedestrians to access public transport bus routes.
Our Design Approach
3.11 In responding to the opportunities and constraints, the detailed design for the Site will provide highquality development in a landscape-led scheme, illustratively depicted in the accompanying Urban Design Strategy at Appendix 3 of this report and as shown below:
Above: Indicative Layout contained within the accompanying Urban Design Strategy
3.12 The indicative masterplan contains the following key features:
● Protection of the existing listed building Greenwoods;
● Creating a more appropriate and grander setting for the adjacent Listed Water Tower through the careful placement of buildings and open space;
● Protection and retention of existing trees, introduction of a new planting scheme and biodiversity measures;
● Integration of a mix of dwelling types including detached houses, town houses, and potentially live-work units;
● Creation of a more curvaceous form to the site access road and greater connectivity to the wider area.
3.13 This demonstrates that a high-quality development scheme incorporating substantial areas of landscaping and open space can be delivered alongside approximately 43 dwellings in a highly sustainable location.
Contribution towards the 5-year housing land supply
3.14 EPUT is fully committed to realising the delivery of the allocated development in the short-term and intends to engage in formal pre-application discussions with BBC imminently with the intention of progressing with an outline application as soon as is reasonably possible.
3.15 BBC's delivery assumptions are that the allocation would be completed within years 2023/4 and 2024/5. Whilst we consider this to be pessimistic, it does fall within the first five years from now so we concur with the assessment that the allocation would contribute towards the five-year supply. Securing this allocation would also ensure that BBC would maintain a strong and varied portfolio of sites that can deliver immediately following adoption of the Local Plan and underpin supply pipeline whilst the large strategic sites undergo the requisite lead-in.
3.16 We therefore fully support Policy R09.
4.0 Conclusion
4.1 These representations have been prepared on behalf of Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust in response to BBC's emerging Plan consultation in respect of Land off Warley Hill. EPUT owns the Site.
4.2 We support the proposed allocation of Land off Warley Hill under Policy R09 because the allocation of the site for residential development is justified and consistent with national policy. 4.3 Allocating sites to exceed the identified local housing need is consistent with national policy, whereby housing targets are viewed as a minimum and should be exceeded where possible toensure flexibility in housing delivery. We also support the proposed policies relating to Growth Areas, the Settlement Hierarchy, Managing Growth and the general approach to directing growth to the most sustainable locations. BBC recognises that exceptional circumstances exist and warrant the release of Green Belt to accommodate the Borough's housing need.
4.4 The Land off Warley hill is located within the heart of the Central Brentwood Growth Corridor, 800m from Brentwood Crossrail station, with good accessibility to key services and facilities as well as the strategic road network, train links to London and other public transport. Several primary and secondary schools are within a reasonable distance and the characteristics of the site, with softly undulating land and an abundance of trees and hedgerows in the setting of the Water Tower heritage asset, offer a unique opportunity for high-quality, aesthetically pleasing homes.
4.5 As vacant previously developed, surplus public-sector land, the site represents an excellent opportunity to deliver homes on brownfield land in line with policy direction in the NPPF and would make best use of land currently costing the NHS money in maintenance and upkeep.
4.6 We therefore support BBC in allocating the Site for residential development.
4.7 Taking account of the above, we would seek to support BBC in its defence of Policy R09 at Examination and we therefore consider it appropriate to participate at the oral part of the Examination in Public to enable discussion of the points we have raised.

Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson representations Brentwood Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan (February 2019)
Merits of our client's landholdings and the Dunton Hills Garden Village
Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson's landholdings (part of allocation R01) are unconstrained, suitable, deliverable and available. As such the landholding can be brought forward as part of the wider Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation.
Our clients are housebuilders, not land promoters, and are seeking delivery at the earliest opportunity pending suitable access. Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes will continue to work with officers and Councillors (and other landowners/developers) to help bring forward this key site for meeting local housing needs in South Essex. It is absolutely right that the allocation should not be anchored to the work that will be carried out as part of the Association of South Essex Local Authorities (ASELA) and the emerging Joint Strategic Plan (JSP).
The identification of strategic scale sites to meet Brentwood's housing needs is supported, as is the principle of a new settlement via the Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation (Policy R01) and its ambition for the delivery of additional homes beyond the plan period. The allocation represents an efficient use of greenfield land adjudged to be sustainable. Similarly we commend the Council for taking the decision to bring forward strategic greenbelt release alongside a comprehensively planned new settlement.
Our clients would support improved integration with Basildon alongside a landscape solution/approach agreed via a Statement of Common Ground and complementary policy positions (and/or supporting text) in both the Brentwood and Basildon Local Plans. This would help to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village and the future expansion of West Basildon whilst maintaining separation physically through the provision of publicly accessible green infrastructure and improving connectivity for new and existing residents. Our clients do not support the position taken by Basildon Borough Council and have submitted representations objecting to the draft Basildon Local Plan.
Policy SP02: Managing Growth
Paragraphs 4.11 - 4.21 of the draft plan set out Brentwood's housing need position based upon the application of the standard methodology for calculating a minimum Local Housing Need figure; and the identification of a 20% buffer of housing sites for the first five years of the plan. The plan, at paragraph 1.38, also states that:
"..it may be necessary to review the Brentwood Local Plan, at least in parts, to ensure any opportunities for further growth and infrastructure provision in the Borough identified in the Joint Strategic Plan can be realised."
Our clients support this approach. Brentwood is seeking to meet their identified housing needs in full plus a sufficient buffer in the early part of the plan period. Crucially the draft plan is not using the JSP as a reason for deferring difficult planning decisions. As such, the draft plan is not reliant upon the emerging JSP to meet Brentwood's needs up to 2033. There has been no consultation to date on the JSP (as at March 2019) and it would be wholly unsound to rely upon a future JSP to meet identified needs up to 2033. Our clients support the pragmatic approach set out by Brentwood which is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 11, 16 and 26 - a 'positively' prepared plan that seeks 'opportunities to meet the development needs' of their area and is 'sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change').
Our clients would advocate delaying submission of the publication plan until the 2018 affordability ratio data is released by the Office for National Statistics (the data used in the standard methodology for calculating housing need), due for publication in March/April 2019. This would allow time for factual updates to be made to Policy SP02 and housing target. Should submission come before the publication of the affordability ratio data, Brentwood should consider over allocating sites to increase the buffer of sites over for the whole plan period - sufficient to provide flexibility in respect of any increases brought about by the new affordability data published prior to or shortly after submission.
aecom.com
7/14
The recent release of the Housing Delivery Test (HDT) in February 2019 confirmed that Brentwood and all the other ASELA authorities (with the exception of Thurrock) have to identify a 20% buffer to their five year housing land supply and prepare a HDT Action Plan by August 2019. The minimum Local Housing Need figure (produced by the new standard methodology) will be applied to all authorities from 2018/19 for the purposes of the HDT (unless there is a plan that is less than 5 years old). As such Brentwood (and Basildon) will both be subject to HDT assessment on the basis of the minimum Local Housing Need figures until such time that their plans are adopted.
Table 1 (below) shows the HDT results published by MHCLG (19th February 2019) for all Councils that make up the ASELA. This shows housing delivery has only been achieved in one of the past three monitoring years (2016/17) for Basildon and it was never achieved by Brentwood. The HDT results evidence a persistent under delivery of housing in the South Essex region. Brentwood and Basildon are at risk of failing the HDT thresholds in 2019 and 2020. At present, Brentwood is in danger of falling below the 45% threshold this November 2019. This would leave the authority open to the presumption in favour of sustainable development (the 'tilted balance') and susceptible to speculative applications outside of the identified draft allocations. For Basildon there is a real risk that they will also be captured by the presumption in favour of sustainable development (75% threshold) as early as November 2020. Basildon's position is even more precarious given that they have not identified sufficient land to meet their minimum Local Housing Need, let alone a 20% buffer for the first five years, in their previous consultation draft plan.
Table 1 South Essex HDT results (MHCLG, February 2019)
[see attachment]
This illustrates the severity of the housing crisis in South Essex and the pressing requirement for all ASELA authorities to identify sufficient land supply (to meet their needs and a 20% buffer for the first five years) and maintain the plan-led approach. Basildon's failure to allocate sufficient sites to meet housing needs will impact the other ASELA partners (e.g. increased unmet needs in the region).
Duty to Cooperate
The above issues should be addressed as a matter of urgency through Brentwood and Basildon's Duty to Cooperate Statements of Common Ground. A Duty to Cooperate position statement is welcome, although the MOU with the ASELA is insufficient to evidence the detailed Duty to Cooperate matters that need to be addressed with Basildon. A Statement of Common Ground that outlines areas of uncommon ground would be just as valuable in advance of submission of both plans and the forthcoming examinations.
This will help to avoid creating inconsistencies or prejudice any future plan making as part of the ASLEA JSP. If Basildon and Brentwood both wish to avoid the appearance of sprawl along the A127, this can be achieved through a simple Statement of Common Ground and via identical high-level policies (or supporting guidance) in each Local Plan. At present the current policy position does not ensure an integrated approach to delivery of the Garden Village and adjacent sites to the West of Basildon. It is our client's view that a failure to tackle this issue head-on now could stall delivery on Dunton Hills Garden Village. The JSP is not the appropriate vehicle for resolving a planning issue within the emerging Basildon and Brentwood plans; this matter must be resolved prior to submission, of both Local Plans (ideally via a Statement of Common Ground).
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in Green Belt / Policy HP18: Designing Landscape and the Public Realm
Our clients support the strategic release of greenbelt sites in sustainable locations. Dunton Hills Garden Village has followed a robust Green Belt review; Sustainability Appraisal; and site selection process. The draft plan does not allocate land between Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon; therefore it maintains physical separation and avoids the coalescence of the new settlement and existing built up area of West Horndon. To date there is no evidence that it would be possible to meet the Borough's acute housing needs without amending the Green Belt boundaries as proposed in the draft plan.
The Stage III Green Belt Review January 2019 (GBR3) continues the work of the previous two stages. Again the methodology used appears sound and has been consistently applied. GBR3 assesses the DHGV site, Parcel 200, as being Not Contained, exhibiting Significant Separation Reduction between settlements, as being Functional Countryside and of Limited Relationship to Historic Towns. This results in an overall conclusion of Parcel 200 making a moderate to high contribution to the Green Belt. As with the LSCA the scale of DHGV inevitably results in elevated scores.
The Dunton Hills Garden Village allocation (shaded yellow) and wider Green Belt parcel incorporating land West of Basildon in Basildon Borough (shaded red) shown on Figure 1 (below) is an area bounded by the A127, the A128, a railway line and the western edge of Basildon - there are few (if any) examples nationally of more contained and defensible boundary in Green Belt terms.
Figure 1 Green Belt Context: Land West of Basildon (red) and Dunton Hills Garden Village (yellow)
[see attachment]
There would be clear separation maintained between Dunton Hills Garden Village and West Horndon in Brentwood Borough. Paragraph 9.12 is also supported as it recognises that "The B148 (West Mayne) is the eastern road beyond the borough boundary separating the site from the built-up area of Basildon". If Dunton Hills Garden Village and the land West of Basildon (in Basildon Borough) are both allocated it is only logical to remove all of this land from the Green Belt based upon the strong defensible boundaries that exist for both areas. Landscape approach, design principles and physical separation can (as previously discussed) be dealt with via a Statement of Common Ground and complementary Local Plan policies (and guidance) in the respective plans. Policy R01 includes a detailed statutory policy to ensure the new settlement is comprehensively planned via landscape-led approach. This will ensure the development is not simply ribbon development along the A127 and instead an autonomous Settlement Category 2 Garden Village that will complement the existing settlement hierarchy and is well related to the existing communities of Basildon and Laindon and West Horndon.
The Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options October 2018 (LSCA) assigns a landscape capacity to the potential allocations. The methodology used appears sound and has been consistently applied. The LSCA identifies the DHGV site, Parcel 200, as being of high landscape sensitivity, medium - low landscape value and medium - medium low landscape capacity. It is noted that the scale of the strategic options considered make comparison with smaller sites difficult. The scale of DHGV inevitably results in elevated scores.
The site is not the subject of any landscape quality designations that would prevent development. Our clients consider that Policy HP18: Designing Landscape and the Public Realm, in combination with Policy R01(I) clause C, provide an adequate policy framework for guiding a future landscape scheme - including the provision of green infrastructure between R01 and the development of the West of Basildon.
Policy R01: Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation
The policy would benefit from being shortened and simplified. Much of the detail could instead be covered in the supporting text. Our clients would recommend a less prescriptive policy in favour of a series of development principles. The policy also recognises the appropriate phasing of infrastructure and mechanisms for delivery. However, our clients have a number of detailed comments to help enhance the clarity and utility of the draft policy.
R01(I)
 Clause B uses the term "self-sustaining" - this is currently an undefined term in the context of the facilities that may be required by future residents. It is likely that services and schooling would also be accessed in Basildon and so the policy should also recognise the importance with connectivity to nearby allocations and settlements in Basildon Borough. Whilst appreciating the need for a garden village to be separate, it should also be appropriately connected and complimentary to nearby settlements.
 There is a slight inconsistency between policy clauses A and D in the use of "around 2,700 homes" and "at least 2,700 homes" in the plan period. Our clients would favour the more positive "at least" in light of the pressing housing needs in the area.
 Policy clause D(c) currently expresses a requirement for employment land as 5.5ha. An alternative approach would be to also reference a jobs figure, employment densities are not fixed and the policy will need to remain flexible to provide the optimum employment solution on the site up to 2033.
 Policy clause D(d) references a co-located Secondary school, but this term is not defined in terms of what facilities could be appropriately co-located or any indication on forms of entry etc. This clause could cross reference to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan that shall remain a living documented capable of being updated as the development of the site evolves.
 Policy clause D(h) states 50% of the "total land area", this term is not defined and may have implications for the net developable area. Without the benefit of a detailed masterplan and Environment Statement supporting an application this requirement appears needlessly onerous and will make the allocation less flexible. We would suggest removal of a specific percentage in advance of further masterplanning and consultation.
R01 (II)
 Policy clause C(f) states: "a green infrastructure buffer / wedge on the eastern boundary with Basildon Borough to achieve visual separation to help significantly improve the landscaped and habitat value thus reinforcing the beneficial purpose and use of the green belt in that zone." This matter needs careful consideration in advance of submission in light of Basildon's representations and their erroneous position on Green Belt coalescence and countryside encroachment in their draft plan (which fails to allocate sufficient land to meet needs). Brentwood should provide further clarity that this separation can be achieved without sterilising large tracts of the allocation. A modest multifunctional green gap running north-south in close proximity to the Borough boundary would be a proportionate response in this location.
 Policy clause D(c) states "pathways through the green and blue infrastructure (GBI) network will be made of permeable material and follow a coherent treatment throughout the village. The pathways will all connect into a circular walk, with interconnected shortcut routes and be signposted offering directions to key destination points". It is premature at this stage to place overly restrictive pathway design where they may be sound place-making reasons for not following this approach in all areas.
 Policy clause I(a) states that emphasis will be given to: "incorporating car sharing clubs and electric vehicle only development". Whilst the principle is supported, this may not be appropriate for all areas of this large allocation and would be overly restrictive.
 Policy clause L(b) includes a small typo for BREEAM. This clause should make clear that BREEAM is for certain types of building only.
R01 (III)
 Clause B states: "The development and phased delivery of DHGV must ensure the timely delivery of the required on-site and off-site infrastructure to address the impact of the new garden village". Whilst supported and the timely delivery on infrastructure is essential in the creation of a sense of community, off-site infrastructure may be beyond the control of the primary land owners/promoter, and risks stalling development if a Grampian condition is envisaged.
An explicit policy clause is urgently required to ensure for a no ransom position. The primary developer must build roads up to the boundary of Crest Nicholson and Bellway Homes landholding. Without this added clause the allocation would be ineffective based upon the tests of soundness.
The Site benefits from the involvement of volume housebuilders which, according to the Letwin Review (2018), leads to a variety in product and higher build out rates. An extensive analysis of national house builder annual reports, conducted by Turley on behalf of Bellway Homes, demonstrates that average delivery rates (per outlet) range from between 40-58 units pa1. There is potential for sites (normally larger sites) to see a number of outlets building new homes at any one time. Additional outlets are sometimes in the form of a different house builder, but it can also be in the form of different products sold from different marketing suites by the same house builder. Crest Nicholson and Bellway Home's landholdings are jointly promoted in order to deliver high quality sustainable developments at pace and will help to achieve the housing trajectory set out in Appendix 1 of the draft plan.
The plan's delivery trajectory relies on increased delivery in the later part of the plan period (partly reliant on infrastructure investment). This emphasises the importance of infrastructure equalisation and removing any ransom scenarios as far as practically possible through statutory policy. In addition, it would be prudent for the ASELA authorities to work together to lever in external funding for reinforcements such as the gas pipeline to enable an alternative access arrangements and internal connectivity that would release more development land for housing and public open space later in the plan period.
R01 Supporting text comments:
 Paragraph 9.30 includes a reference to 'Medium' density- but this is not defined. The allocation location is in close proximity to Basildon and West Horndon and the potential for sustainable modes of transport lends itself to higher densities in district and local centres.
Transport policies B11 - B17
The general approach taken to transport within the Local Plan with the Built Environment policies (BE11 to BE17) is supported and it can be seen that these policies are feeding through into the policies for the site specific allocations.
The evidence base for the Local Plan includes Brentwood Borough Local Plan Transport Assessment (Local Plan TA) dated (October 2018) prepared by PBA and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) prepared by the Council. These documents together provides the transport element of the evidence base and support the Council's proposed development strategy including the proposed development at Dunton Hills. They are essential elements of the evidence base and their soundness is not questioned in these representation, however, the conclusions of the Local Plan TA and the IDP need to be better reflected in the Local Plan.
The Local Plan TA sets out the approach to the modelling work, results of modelling and junction assessment, highlights those worse performing junctions that may require mitigations, the sustainable measure proposed and the impact this has on the junction assessment to enable the development sites to come forward. The assessment covers key 27 junctions within Brentwood planning authority.
The assessment assumed that DHGV would provide 2,500 new homes in the Local Plan period along with 5.5ha of employment land. In addition, number of sites located within Basildon Borough Council and Havering Borough Council were included within the reference case scenario in order to accurately assess the impact of Brentwood Local Plan. The West Basildon Urban Extension was included within the reference case assuming provision of 1000 new homes as per 2016 Basildon Local Plan publication.
The Local Plan TA identifies a number of junctions that would need to be improved across the Borough to support the development proposed in the Local Plan. However, the Local Plan Submission Version does not include reference to these. As an example, the following table contains the identified improvements in the surrounding roads to Dunton Hills Garden Village.
Table 2 Results of PBA capacity assessment, Brentwood Local Plan Evidence Base
[see attachment]
While it is clear that some of these improvements would be provided via Essex County Council (ECC) or Highways England as the relevant highway authorities there is no reference made in the Local Plan to them. It would be expected that the evidence base would transfer through to the IDP to be clear on how and when these identified infrastructure improvements would be provided.
As each identified allocated site comes forward to a planning application stage it will define what highway improvements are needed through the Transport Assessment associated with the individual site. However, guidance should be given on what improvements have been identified as part of the Local Plan TA to ensure that the need for them is considered and if they are required then how would they be funded i.e. guidance is needed on the scope for any future Transport Assessments to support developments.
The IDP contains a similar table for highway infrastructure improvements and those relevant to Dunton Hills Garden Village are listed in Table 3 below:
Table 3 IDP Schedule extract.
In addition to four infrastructure requirements relating specifically to DHGV a number of requirements are set out in the IDP for new developments and site allocations coming forward in the Local Plan period. Key improvements to be delivered as part of DHGV development are:
 DHGV: Widening Connectivity - further feasibility studies required to improvements of pedestrian connectivity across the A127 and A128;
 DHGV: Walkways/ Cycleways - provision of a good footway and cycle way network;
 DHGV: Sustainable Transport Infrastructure - provision of cycle hub within the DHGV site; and
 DHGV: Public Realm and Village Square - subject to detailed masterplanning good quality pedestrian centres should be provided.
It is acknowledged within the proposed policy for Dunton Hills Garden Village that reference is made for the need for a Transport Assessment report to be undertaken and this is where the detailed assessment can be made of the highway infrastructure needed to support the proposed allocation. However, there should be some reference to the published evidence base to guide the scope of this work. This is not to say that the identified improvements will be needed, but they should be considered as they have been identified within the evidence base.
Attendance at the examination hearing sessions
Our clients request attendance at the relevant hearing sessions to make verbal submissions in response to matters and questions related to: the Duty to Cooperate; housing numbers and the spatial strategy, landscape, transport, infrastructure, deliverability and the strategic allocations. We reserve the right to make further representations at the examination hearing sessions, should work on Brentwood's Community Infrastructure Levy evolve in respect of any implications on strategic sites and their ability to deliver policy compliant schemes.

The following amendments are proposed to the text of Policy NE13:
Paragraph A: delete the whole paragraph the deletion of Section A of the policy in order that the wording is compliant with national policy.
Paragraph B: amend as follow: These sites will be removed from the Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect the open countryside for future generations. Site boundaries to form the new Green Belt boundaries are set out on relevant sites in Appendix 2.

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

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

LLLP conclude that Point A of Policy NE13 should be deleted. Paragraph 8.114 should also be deleted or re-drafted to be explicit and entirely clear that the community benefits sought from meeting housing needs on sites released from the Green Belt will only be secured in accordance with the relevant statutory tests and national planning policies.

Representations for and on LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
March 2019
Introduction
1. Chilmark Consulting Ltd. (CCL) are instructed by and write for and on behalf of
LaSalle Land Limited Partnership (LLLP) with respect to the Brentwood Borough
Local Plan: Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green
Belt.
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
4. Policy NE13 requires, at Point A, that sites allocated to meet housing needs in the
Green Belt will be:
"expected to provide significant community benefits, both for surrounding
existing communities and those moving into new homes on site".
5. LLLP object to NE13 Point A as the policy appears to be entirely aspirational and
unjustified. The benefit of releasing Green Belt land for new housing is to ensure
that the Borough effectively meets its identified Local Housing Need and maintains
a continuous supply of housing land and sites in order to do so.
6. The National Planning Policy Framework identifies the delivery of new housing as
contributing to achieving sustainable development at paragraph 8 (as both an
economic and social objective) and recognises the importance of significantly
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
2
boosting the supply of housing at paragraph 59. These national objectives are for
the public benefit and represent positive contributions arising.
7. Financial, land or other contributions to new or expanded community, transport or
environmental infrastructure must be made in accordance with the relevant statutory
tests including the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010 (as amended).
8. The NPPF is clear at paragraph 55 that planning conditions should be kept to a
minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to
the development permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other
respects.
9. NPPF paragraph 56 confirms that planning obligations must only be sought where
they meet the relevant statutory tests.
10. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF requires that up-to-date policies should set out the
contributions expected of development.
11. In LLLP's view there is nothing set out in planning statute or in the NPPF that
supports the approach described in Policy NE13 (Point A) or at the reasoned
justification in paragraph 8.114, seeking benefits that are in some way additional to
or in excess of those that are wholly necessary, directly related to the development
and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
Conclusions
12. LLLP object to Policy NE13 at Point A. The policy is not sound as it is not justified
in generally seeking "significant community benefits"; is not effective in terms of
specifying what the benefits sought would be or why they comply with the relevant
statutory and national policies; and the policy is not consistent with the NPPF
including at paragraphs 55 - 57.
Modifications Required
13. LLLP conclude that Point A of Policy NE13 should be deleted. Paragraph 8.114
should also be deleted or re-drafted to be explicit and entirely clear that the
community benefits sought from meeting housing needs on sites released from the
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
3
Green Belt will only be secured in accordance with the relevant statutory tests and
national planning policies.

Support the Policy as worded.

We believe this policy is basically sound in expecting some community return for the release of land from the Green Belt, and the creation of defensible boundaries for the longer term beyond the Plan period.
We note the type of community benefits being sought as set out in paragraph 8.114. We have been promoting our client's site at Crow Green Lane, Pilgrims Hatch and have consistently included in our proposals provision for a community facility. The type of facility provided would be determined in consultation with the local community.
Paragraph 8.115 mentions a need for smaller units to provide an option to older people wanting to downsize. Again we have consistently included provision within our proposals to meet exactly this particular housing need.
Policy NE13 calls for proposals on Green Belt allocations to establish long term defensible boundaries. Again we have consistently explained how good defensible boundaries can be established around our client's land.

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

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

remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached

Remove sites R25 and R26 from the Local Plan

As attached