Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 78

Object

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

Representation ID: 23611

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands. The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23612

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI. The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23613

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone. The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23614

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes. The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible. The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23615

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages. The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23616

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful. Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken. But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23617

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored. The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23618

Received: 24/04/2019

Respondent: Dunton Community Association

Number of people: 157

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.

Full text:



BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW






Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23648

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

DHGV is beset with the problem of a lack of technical evidence to support the proposed new settlement. It shares concerns similar to Uttlesford's Local Plan, about potential gaps in the timing and funding of large critical infrastructure associated with the proposed Garden Communities that are central to the overarching strategy of the Plan, in particular the delivery of housing.

Change suggested by respondent:

The SA and evidence base do not support the spatial strategy for growth set out in the Local Plan. The Local Plan process should be suspended to allow a fundamental review of the SA.

Full text:

We find the plan to be unsound, not legally compliant and failing in its Duty to Cooperate, as set out in the statement below.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Work on the emerging Local Plan for Brentwood Borough commenced back in 2009. Andrew Martin-Planning has made representations to each key stage in the plan-making process on behalf of Countryside Properties, in respect of land to the east of West Horndon. We attach past representations as appendices because they continue to be relevant and demonstrate that land at West Horndon represents the most sustainable location for strategic growth in the Borough to meet development needs over the Plan period 2016 - 2033.
1.2 Representations to date have argued that Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) has progressed its local plan without the benefit of a complete, robust and up-to-date evidence base. Furthermore the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) does not fully support the spatial strategy for growth proposed in the Local Plan. The SA cannot be said to have informed the production of the Pre-Submission Local Plan. We submit that this continues to be the position.
1.3 The emerging Local Plan has struggled to identify land for strategic growth in a Borough where 89% lies within the Green Belt. The latest version of the Plan acknowledges that it is not possible to identify a 5-year housing land supply (paragraph 4.18). A greater proportion of the required homes will therefore have to be delivered beyond 2023.
1.4 The Council's problem in identifying land for housing is compounded by recent sanctions imposed by the Government under the 2018 Housing Delivery Test introduced in the revised National Planning Policy Framework. The total number of homes required in the Borough over a three year period up to April 2018 was 933. The Council only delivered 474 homes, i.e. 51% of its target. Consequently it is now required to produce an Action Plan showing how it intends to boost delivery and must have a 20% buffer on its housing land supply.
1.5 Throughout the preparation of the Plan the Council has maintained its intention to deliver at least one large-scale, strategic site for a mixed scheme of housing and employment. Various strategic site options have been examined over the years and the latest SA to the Brentwood Local Plan Pre-Submission document, February 2019, confirms :
"there is now a refined understanding of those sites that are genuine ('reasonable') contenders for allocation through the Local Plan. Specifically at the current time there is a need to give close consideration to two options:
* Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV)....
* West Horndon..."
1.6 Although these two sites are said to remain in contention, the Local Plan has chosen DHGV as its preferred option for growth. This is contrary to the accompanying evidence base which appears to lend greater support to growth adjoinging the existing settlement of West Horndon. We argue that the Local Plan is unsound because it is not accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that supports the Brentwood Local Plan spatial strategy for growth. The SA prepared by AECOM is quite simply unable to rule out strategic development at West Horndon as a viable alternative solution to growth in the Borough. It therefore remains in contention. The SA finds favour in DHGV over West Horndon, only in terms of the scale of housing that can be provided. We and others submit that there is no evidence to suggest that the scale of development proposed at Dunton Hills can be delivered.
1.7 A Joint Spatial Plan for authorities in South Essex (Including Brentwood, Thurrock, Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend on Sea ) is in the early stages of preparation. This will be an important document that encompasses several local authorities that are struggling to meet their growth needs in predominantly Green Belt areas. Brentwood Borough Council's attempts to create a cross boundary settlement with Basildon at Dunton Hills has failed, but more recent proposals for a new settlement on land at Thurrock, centred on West Horndon, are a feasible alternative as proposed in Thurrock Council's emerging Local Plan (Issues and Options Stage 2). It provides the opportunity to address the need for housing in the context of a probable shortfall across the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Area. Through the Duty to Cooperate procedure authorities like Thurrock could contribute towards meeting any unmet housing needs from Brentwood within a proposed new settlement centred on West Horndon.
1.8 Growth at West Horndon rather than Dunton Hills has historically been supported by Thurrock and Basildon in their response to the emerging Plan for Brentwood. Reasons include its proximity to existing infrastructure such as a railway station, less impact in landscape terms and in relation to the key purposes of the Green Belt, such as coalescence (with Basildon). Crucially, land at West Horndon would be able to deliver much needed housing in the first five years of the Local Plan.
1.9 Strategic infrastructure proposals for Brentwood or Thurrock should not be considered in isolation from wider strategic infrastructure proposals, specifically the options and final decision on the Lower Thames Crossing.

2.0 LOCAL PLAN HOUSING REQUIREMENT
2.1 The Brentwood Local Plan, February 2019 maintains that housing need in the Borough, based on the NPPF July 2018, should be set at a minimum of 350 homes per annum. With an uplift of 20% this rises to 456 dwellings per annum. Given recent poor performance in reaching its housing target (over the three year period to April 2018 it delivered only 51% of its required housing), the Government has identified the Authority as one that must put in place an Action Plan to state how it will boost housing and apply a 20% uplift.
2.2 Whilst Local Housing need will be the subject of ongoing debate and analysis through the examination of the Local Plan, what the Plan does not dispute is its current failure to identify a five year housing land supply as required by government guidance. Consequently a greater proportion of required homes will be delivered beyond 2023 (paragraphs 4.18 to 4.21).
2.3 From an overall minimum requirement of 7752 homes over the plan period, some 35% (2,700 homes) is proposed to be located within a new settlement at Dunton Hills, which is not supported by evidence to demonstrate deliverability and viability. As more need is identified in the Borough this proposed new settlement is being called upon to absorb an ever increasing number of new homes. In November 2018 when the Regulation 19 Plan was considered by Full Council, some 19 amendments were proposed including ones to remove certain housing allocations such as land at Honeypot Lane, resolving simply to reallocate lost housing (some 200+ homes) to DHGV "so that there is no net loss to the overall plan". Discussion between members simply referred to the promoters of DHGV stating that they have agreed to accommodate the extra number of homes. The proper justification for such a significant change to the plan is absent.
2.4 The Plan places great emphasis on the fact that DHGV was announced by the Government as one of 14 proposed Garden Villages back in January 2017 and that the Council received funding to take this forward. In reality such an investment is made at the risk of the planning and legal processes which may conclude that the proposals go no further. This has been demonstrated in the case of the North Essex new settlement proposals where a Local Plan inspector found that significant further work is required to justify the Garden Community proposals. They have not been shown to be viable and deliverable. It could be argued that the proposals for DHGV will suffer the same problems.
2.5 Lessons can be learned from emerging Local Plans for nearby/adjoining authorities and their proposals for key strategic sites. A Post Hearing Note issued by the Local Plan Inspector appointed to examine the London Borough of Havering Plan casts doubt over the spatial strategy for growth and issues surrounding housing land supply. It queries the SA and various options examined, together with the assessment of the alternatives. The evidence drawn upon by the Council to reach its conclusions is queried. The Inspector has also expressed concern that the Plan does not demonstrate sufficient housing land supply to cover the 15 year period, nor has the Council been able to demonstrate that it has sufficient sites to provide a 5 year supply. The Housing Trajectory is queried. The Council is asked to justify its expectations in relation to delivery of key sites and assumptions in relation to infrastructure requirements. Brentwood could be accused of being similarly vague in terms of the proposed delivery of DHGV, on several counts.
2.6 The Uttlesford Local Plan has recently been submitted for examination and initial questions by the appointed Inspectors raise concerns about potential gaps in the timing and funding of large critical infrastructure associated with the proposed Garden Communities that are central to the overarching strategy of the Plan, in particular the delivery of housing. DHGV is beset with the same problem of a lack of technical evidence to support the proposed new settlement.
2.7 As the 2019 SA of the Brentwood Plan confirms, the adjoining authority of Basildon questions whether the scale of development proposed at Dunton, which amounts to over a third of the Borough's entire housing provision for the plan period, could be supported by infrastructure, in the absence of a clear delivery plan. The adjacent authority of Thurrock cites a lack of technical evidence and failure to test fully all the reasonable options given the decision to rely on a new settlement rather than urban extensions closer to existing infrastructure.
2.7 There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Local Plan housing requirement can be met by the spatial strategy for growth proposed in the Draft Local Plan.

3.0 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
3.1 The SA is clear that both DHGV and West Horndon remain in contention as strategic site options to meet growth needs in Brentwood. The SA has been undertaken by AECOM who clarifiy in the section entitled "Establishing the Preferred Option" that it comprises text that "is the response of Council Officers to the alternatives appraisal". As we have stated in previous representations to the emerging Plan, the only real support for DHGV to justify its elevation to a 'preferred allocation' is that the scheme is supported by the Council. Consultation on DHGV has led to wide-scale objection from the public and key stakeholders which the Council has chosen to ignore. Various positives and negatives of DHGV and West Horndon are set out in the SA, concluding that Dunton Hills provides the opportunity for a larger and comprehensive scheme. The SA acknowledges proposals for a new settlement in the north of Thurrock where it adjoins West Horndon but rejects these on the basis that "this proposal is at such an early stage of formulation that it cannot be considered to be a potential issue or constraint in delivering DHGV".
3.2 It has been difficult for the Council and its advisers to dismiss land at West Horndon as a reasonable alternative because it represents a more sustainable location for growth than DHGV, as confirmed in various evidence base documents and summarised in the SA. Unlike DHGV, it can deliver houses in the first five years of the plan and in conjunction with land in Thurrock is capable of exceeding housing need going forward.
3.3 The only reason DHGV is selected as the preferred option for growth is its perceived ability to provide a greater number of new homes. As we have stated above there is no firm evidence to demonstrate this.
3.4 AECOM has recently been appointed by Uttlesford District Council to review the SA to its Local Plan. This follows the report of the Inspector who considered the Joint Section One Plan for the North Essex Authorities and his concerns regarding the SA process it was subject to. UDC felt that a review of its SA was necessary because of similarities between the NEA Plan and Uttlesford in terms of their reliance on Garden Communities. AECOM identified a number of concerns in relation to the objectivity of the SA for the Uttlesford Local Plan, and assumptions made for its Garden Community options. In particular the SA is said to have relied on what was being proposed by developers/promoters of the key strategic sites, raising concerns about the fairness and consistency of the appraisal. The same criticism could be levelled at the SA of the Brentwood Plan that relies without question upon the word of CEG as the promoter of DHGV.
3.5 Representations to the Draft Local Plan, Sustainability Appraisal and evidence base submitted by AM-P on behalf of Countryside Properties in March 2018 are attached at Appendix 1. These refer to the Interim SAR of January 2018 and 2016, and remain relevant. Appraisal of the spatial strategy alternatives in versions of the SA over time, demonstrate differing results for which there is no justification. By way of example we compare the summary tables from the 2016 SAR and that for January 2019. Under several topics the score for West Horndon has been downgraded in the most recent appraisal, without proper explanation. Despite this it has still not been possible for the Council and its technical advisors to dismiss West Horndon as a sustainable location for growth. In landscape terms development at West Horndon would have significantly less impact than that at Dunton. DHGV continues to be preferred (albeit AECOM confirm this as an officer view) because it is seen as an answer to the Council's housing supply problems. The latest proposals by Thurrock on land to the south of West Horndon throw a different light on the SA conclusions.

4.0 THE EVIDENCE BASE
4.1 The evidence base to the Local Plan is in part outdated, and incomplete.
Transportation
4.2 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has no date on it. The chapter on transport and movement refers to ongoing studies on the A12 and A127 key routes and the proposed route of the Lower Thames Crossing. Work so far finds that main junctions on the A127 are operating significantly over capacity.
4.3 The SA confirms that ECC withholds support until the appropriate highway modelling has been undertaken to assess site specific and cumulative impacts of developments on the local and wider highway network. Furthermore, highway network considerations must be a foremost consideration when arriving at reasonable spatial strategy alternatives.
4.4 The Transport Assessment of the Brentwood Local Plan was undertaken by Peter Brett Associates in October 2018. This confirms in paragraphs 1.2.3 to 1.2.5 that in respect of the A127 corridor for growth, a number of studies are progressing, being led by ECC. Within the A127 Corridor for Growth Study there are individual pieces of work which are currently at different stages of planning and development. Where information is available, this has been used to inform modelling. The final outcomes of the study are not yet known and continued working with ECC and other neighbouring authorities will be important.
4.5 The Local Plan confirms the incomplete status of the transport assessment by stating that A127/A128 studies by ECC are "to be fed into the plan". Policy does however aim to maximise the value of railway connectivity and recognises the important role for West Horndon station in future transport provision.
4.6 An Amendment Note to the Transport Assessment dated January 2019, confirms the further information that is to be provided. This includes amongst other things additional junction studies, further trip distribution plots, cross boundary impacts, reassignment impacts and proposed highway mitigation.
4.7 The SA confirms that Highways England's work is not complete in terms of the transport study, that ECC question the use of the A127 corridor over the A12 and Basildon Council has concerns over infrastructure provision relative to DHGV. Thurrock Council favours growth at West Horndon which is closer to existing infrastructure.

Green Belt/Landscape
4.8 When the emerging Plan was last consulted on in early 2018 the Green Belt study was in draft form and had not influenced the site selection process. However, back in 2016 a Landscape Study by Crestwood had identified that Dunton was one of 7 sites out of 203 assessed that makes a 'high contribution' to the Green Belt. The analysis found that "This expansive agricultural site if wholly developed would significantly reduce the gap between West Horndon and Basildon, as well as presenting large scale development along the A127 leading east from the M25." The site was found to be "not contained", to have "significant separation reduction" and a harmful effect on functional countryside. Land at West Horndon is found to make only a 'moderate' contribution to the Green Belt. Development on land to the east of the settlement would decrease the gap to Basildon but still retain a functional open space with very limited or no visual linkages. There would be some loss of countryside if developed. Land to the north-east would lead to larger encroachment of the countryside but not to the coalescence with other towns.
4.9 By 2018 work by Crestwood reached a different conclusion on the contribution made to the Green Belt by land at Dunton Hills. Its importance in terms of contribution to the Green Belt went from 'high' status to 'moderate to high'. Land at West Horndon remained classified as 'moderate'. In our previous representations we submitted that the findings were contrived. We considered that they had been retrospectively prepared to justify the Council's wish to promote DHGV. Detailed site assessment still remained to be undertaken.
4.10 A Green Belt Study Part III was published in January 2019 alongside the Regulation 19 Plan. This maintains that the scope of study did not extend to the identification of sites that should be prioritised for allocation for housing, employment or mixed use. Its conclusions were the same for land at Dunton Hills ('moderate to high' contribution to the Green Belt ) although part of the land at west Horndon (to the east) was altered from a previous moderate status to 'moderate to high'. Once again we find these results to be contrived to fit the Council's desire to promote DHGV.
4.11 Immediately following the previous round of consultation on the emerging Local Plan in January 2018, we became aware of an evidence base document entitled "The Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design options Local Plan Green Infrastructure", dated 07/11/2017. This was undertaken by Essex Place Services and commissioned jointly by Basildon District Council and Brentwood Borough Council. The purpose of this document was stated to be "to undertake a broad scale landscape assessment and present proposals for a landscape buffer and green corridor that could encompass the borough boundaries and give visual separation between two potential residential development sites." i.e. an urban extension to Basildon on its west side and a new Garden Village settlement based on the Dunton Hills area (see appendix 2 which is a plan from this report showing the extent of a landscape buffer that would be required in respect of residential development at Dunton Hills
4.12 Key conclusions of this assessment were:
* an assessment of the landscape as "particularly sensitive landscape areas";
* "Views of the project area from the north, west and south west are likely to be particularly notable due to the gently rising land form";
* "In order to mitigate what could be adverse landscape and visual impacts arising from development, the retention of landscape features and the provision of new landscapes, both green and blue infrastructure are likely to be a significant element of any development";
* "There will also be a need to ensure that residential areas are well protected from the busy transport corridor routes in terms of noise, visual impacts and pollution. The landscape infrastructure required to achieve this will be in addition to the landscape corridor required to provide settlement separation and the potential for connectivity to the wider countryside"; and
* Three landscape corridor Options are considered within the report, concluding that Scheme 3 - i.e. that proposing the maximum land-take - is recommended. This considerable land take within the wider assessment area is proposed to "ensure a good outcome in terms of preventing visual settlement coalescence, allow for diverse landscapes and the ecological enhancements to be achieved".
4.13 Despite the fact that Brentwood Borough Council did jointly commission this evidence base report, it does not feature on its website as an evidence base to the emerging Local Plan. A key finding of this assessment was that landscape mitigation works required would crucially not leave sufficient land for development to accommodate 2,500 new homes at that time proposed in the Draft Plan for Dunton Hills Garden Village, let alone the potentially higher figure of 4,000 beyond the plan period.

APPENDICES
1. Brentwood Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations, Sustainability Appraisal and evidence base. Representations on behalf of Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd in respect of land to the east of West Horndon. March 2018.
2 Extract from "The Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Local Plan Green Infrastructure", by Essex Place Services for Basildon and Brentwood Councils, 07/11/2017. Appendix 3, Plan showing the extent of a landscape buffer that would be required in respect of residential proposals on land at Dunton Hills.
and
An extract from the Bid document to the Government for Dunton Hills Garden Village which shows how much proposed development could be lost to landscaping.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 23649

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

In the absence of a clear delivery plan, the Plan is subject to criticism from adjacent authorities: Basildon questions whether the scale of development proposed at Dunton could be supported by infrastructure, and Thurrock cites a lack of technical evidence and failure to test fully all the reasonable options given the decision to rely on a new settlement rather than urban extensions closer to existing infrastructure.

Change suggested by respondent:

The SA and evidence base do not support the spatial strategy for growth set out in the Local Plan. The Local Plan process should be suspended to allow a fundamental review of the SA.

Full text:

We find the plan to be unsound, not legally compliant and failing in its Duty to Cooperate, as set out in the statement below.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Work on the emerging Local Plan for Brentwood Borough commenced back in 2009. Andrew Martin-Planning has made representations to each key stage in the plan-making process on behalf of Countryside Properties, in respect of land to the east of West Horndon. We attach past representations as appendices because they continue to be relevant and demonstrate that land at West Horndon represents the most sustainable location for strategic growth in the Borough to meet development needs over the Plan period 2016 - 2033.
1.2 Representations to date have argued that Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) has progressed its local plan without the benefit of a complete, robust and up-to-date evidence base. Furthermore the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) does not fully support the spatial strategy for growth proposed in the Local Plan. The SA cannot be said to have informed the production of the Pre-Submission Local Plan. We submit that this continues to be the position.
1.3 The emerging Local Plan has struggled to identify land for strategic growth in a Borough where 89% lies within the Green Belt. The latest version of the Plan acknowledges that it is not possible to identify a 5-year housing land supply (paragraph 4.18). A greater proportion of the required homes will therefore have to be delivered beyond 2023.
1.4 The Council's problem in identifying land for housing is compounded by recent sanctions imposed by the Government under the 2018 Housing Delivery Test introduced in the revised National Planning Policy Framework. The total number of homes required in the Borough over a three year period up to April 2018 was 933. The Council only delivered 474 homes, i.e. 51% of its target. Consequently it is now required to produce an Action Plan showing how it intends to boost delivery and must have a 20% buffer on its housing land supply.
1.5 Throughout the preparation of the Plan the Council has maintained its intention to deliver at least one large-scale, strategic site for a mixed scheme of housing and employment. Various strategic site options have been examined over the years and the latest SA to the Brentwood Local Plan Pre-Submission document, February 2019, confirms :
"there is now a refined understanding of those sites that are genuine ('reasonable') contenders for allocation through the Local Plan. Specifically at the current time there is a need to give close consideration to two options:
* Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV)....
* West Horndon..."
1.6 Although these two sites are said to remain in contention, the Local Plan has chosen DHGV as its preferred option for growth. This is contrary to the accompanying evidence base which appears to lend greater support to growth adjoinging the existing settlement of West Horndon. We argue that the Local Plan is unsound because it is not accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that supports the Brentwood Local Plan spatial strategy for growth. The SA prepared by AECOM is quite simply unable to rule out strategic development at West Horndon as a viable alternative solution to growth in the Borough. It therefore remains in contention. The SA finds favour in DHGV over West Horndon, only in terms of the scale of housing that can be provided. We and others submit that there is no evidence to suggest that the scale of development proposed at Dunton Hills can be delivered.
1.7 A Joint Spatial Plan for authorities in South Essex (Including Brentwood, Thurrock, Basildon, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend on Sea ) is in the early stages of preparation. This will be an important document that encompasses several local authorities that are struggling to meet their growth needs in predominantly Green Belt areas. Brentwood Borough Council's attempts to create a cross boundary settlement with Basildon at Dunton Hills has failed, but more recent proposals for a new settlement on land at Thurrock, centred on West Horndon, are a feasible alternative as proposed in Thurrock Council's emerging Local Plan (Issues and Options Stage 2). It provides the opportunity to address the need for housing in the context of a probable shortfall across the South Essex Strategic Housing Market Area. Through the Duty to Cooperate procedure authorities like Thurrock could contribute towards meeting any unmet housing needs from Brentwood within a proposed new settlement centred on West Horndon.
1.8 Growth at West Horndon rather than Dunton Hills has historically been supported by Thurrock and Basildon in their response to the emerging Plan for Brentwood. Reasons include its proximity to existing infrastructure such as a railway station, less impact in landscape terms and in relation to the key purposes of the Green Belt, such as coalescence (with Basildon). Crucially, land at West Horndon would be able to deliver much needed housing in the first five years of the Local Plan.
1.9 Strategic infrastructure proposals for Brentwood or Thurrock should not be considered in isolation from wider strategic infrastructure proposals, specifically the options and final decision on the Lower Thames Crossing.

2.0 LOCAL PLAN HOUSING REQUIREMENT
2.1 The Brentwood Local Plan, February 2019 maintains that housing need in the Borough, based on the NPPF July 2018, should be set at a minimum of 350 homes per annum. With an uplift of 20% this rises to 456 dwellings per annum. Given recent poor performance in reaching its housing target (over the three year period to April 2018 it delivered only 51% of its required housing), the Government has identified the Authority as one that must put in place an Action Plan to state how it will boost housing and apply a 20% uplift.
2.2 Whilst Local Housing need will be the subject of ongoing debate and analysis through the examination of the Local Plan, what the Plan does not dispute is its current failure to identify a five year housing land supply as required by government guidance. Consequently a greater proportion of required homes will be delivered beyond 2023 (paragraphs 4.18 to 4.21).
2.3 From an overall minimum requirement of 7752 homes over the plan period, some 35% (2,700 homes) is proposed to be located within a new settlement at Dunton Hills, which is not supported by evidence to demonstrate deliverability and viability. As more need is identified in the Borough this proposed new settlement is being called upon to absorb an ever increasing number of new homes. In November 2018 when the Regulation 19 Plan was considered by Full Council, some 19 amendments were proposed including ones to remove certain housing allocations such as land at Honeypot Lane, resolving simply to reallocate lost housing (some 200+ homes) to DHGV "so that there is no net loss to the overall plan". Discussion between members simply referred to the promoters of DHGV stating that they have agreed to accommodate the extra number of homes. The proper justification for such a significant change to the plan is absent.
2.4 The Plan places great emphasis on the fact that DHGV was announced by the Government as one of 14 proposed Garden Villages back in January 2017 and that the Council received funding to take this forward. In reality such an investment is made at the risk of the planning and legal processes which may conclude that the proposals go no further. This has been demonstrated in the case of the North Essex new settlement proposals where a Local Plan inspector found that significant further work is required to justify the Garden Community proposals. They have not been shown to be viable and deliverable. It could be argued that the proposals for DHGV will suffer the same problems.
2.5 Lessons can be learned from emerging Local Plans for nearby/adjoining authorities and their proposals for key strategic sites. A Post Hearing Note issued by the Local Plan Inspector appointed to examine the London Borough of Havering Plan casts doubt over the spatial strategy for growth and issues surrounding housing land supply. It queries the SA and various options examined, together with the assessment of the alternatives. The evidence drawn upon by the Council to reach its conclusions is queried. The Inspector has also expressed concern that the Plan does not demonstrate sufficient housing land supply to cover the 15 year period, nor has the Council been able to demonstrate that it has sufficient sites to provide a 5 year supply. The Housing Trajectory is queried. The Council is asked to justify its expectations in relation to delivery of key sites and assumptions in relation to infrastructure requirements. Brentwood could be accused of being similarly vague in terms of the proposed delivery of DHGV, on several counts.
2.6 The Uttlesford Local Plan has recently been submitted for examination and initial questions by the appointed Inspectors raise concerns about potential gaps in the timing and funding of large critical infrastructure associated with the proposed Garden Communities that are central to the overarching strategy of the Plan, in particular the delivery of housing. DHGV is beset with the same problem of a lack of technical evidence to support the proposed new settlement.
2.7 As the 2019 SA of the Brentwood Plan confirms, the adjoining authority of Basildon questions whether the scale of development proposed at Dunton, which amounts to over a third of the Borough's entire housing provision for the plan period, could be supported by infrastructure, in the absence of a clear delivery plan. The adjacent authority of Thurrock cites a lack of technical evidence and failure to test fully all the reasonable options given the decision to rely on a new settlement rather than urban extensions closer to existing infrastructure.
2.7 There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Local Plan housing requirement can be met by the spatial strategy for growth proposed in the Draft Local Plan.

3.0 SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL
3.1 The SA is clear that both DHGV and West Horndon remain in contention as strategic site options to meet growth needs in Brentwood. The SA has been undertaken by AECOM who clarifiy in the section entitled "Establishing the Preferred Option" that it comprises text that "is the response of Council Officers to the alternatives appraisal". As we have stated in previous representations to the emerging Plan, the only real support for DHGV to justify its elevation to a 'preferred allocation' is that the scheme is supported by the Council. Consultation on DHGV has led to wide-scale objection from the public and key stakeholders which the Council has chosen to ignore. Various positives and negatives of DHGV and West Horndon are set out in the SA, concluding that Dunton Hills provides the opportunity for a larger and comprehensive scheme. The SA acknowledges proposals for a new settlement in the north of Thurrock where it adjoins West Horndon but rejects these on the basis that "this proposal is at such an early stage of formulation that it cannot be considered to be a potential issue or constraint in delivering DHGV".
3.2 It has been difficult for the Council and its advisers to dismiss land at West Horndon as a reasonable alternative because it represents a more sustainable location for growth than DHGV, as confirmed in various evidence base documents and summarised in the SA. Unlike DHGV, it can deliver houses in the first five years of the plan and in conjunction with land in Thurrock is capable of exceeding housing need going forward.
3.3 The only reason DHGV is selected as the preferred option for growth is its perceived ability to provide a greater number of new homes. As we have stated above there is no firm evidence to demonstrate this.
3.4 AECOM has recently been appointed by Uttlesford District Council to review the SA to its Local Plan. This follows the report of the Inspector who considered the Joint Section One Plan for the North Essex Authorities and his concerns regarding the SA process it was subject to. UDC felt that a review of its SA was necessary because of similarities between the NEA Plan and Uttlesford in terms of their reliance on Garden Communities. AECOM identified a number of concerns in relation to the objectivity of the SA for the Uttlesford Local Plan, and assumptions made for its Garden Community options. In particular the SA is said to have relied on what was being proposed by developers/promoters of the key strategic sites, raising concerns about the fairness and consistency of the appraisal. The same criticism could be levelled at the SA of the Brentwood Plan that relies without question upon the word of CEG as the promoter of DHGV.
3.5 Representations to the Draft Local Plan, Sustainability Appraisal and evidence base submitted by AM-P on behalf of Countryside Properties in March 2018 are attached at Appendix 1. These refer to the Interim SAR of January 2018 and 2016, and remain relevant. Appraisal of the spatial strategy alternatives in versions of the SA over time, demonstrate differing results for which there is no justification. By way of example we compare the summary tables from the 2016 SAR and that for January 2019. Under several topics the score for West Horndon has been downgraded in the most recent appraisal, without proper explanation. Despite this it has still not been possible for the Council and its technical advisors to dismiss West Horndon as a sustainable location for growth. In landscape terms development at West Horndon would have significantly less impact than that at Dunton. DHGV continues to be preferred (albeit AECOM confirm this as an officer view) because it is seen as an answer to the Council's housing supply problems. The latest proposals by Thurrock on land to the south of West Horndon throw a different light on the SA conclusions.

4.0 THE EVIDENCE BASE
4.1 The evidence base to the Local Plan is in part outdated, and incomplete.
Transportation
4.2 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has no date on it. The chapter on transport and movement refers to ongoing studies on the A12 and A127 key routes and the proposed route of the Lower Thames Crossing. Work so far finds that main junctions on the A127 are operating significantly over capacity.
4.3 The SA confirms that ECC withholds support until the appropriate highway modelling has been undertaken to assess site specific and cumulative impacts of developments on the local and wider highway network. Furthermore, highway network considerations must be a foremost consideration when arriving at reasonable spatial strategy alternatives.
4.4 The Transport Assessment of the Brentwood Local Plan was undertaken by Peter Brett Associates in October 2018. This confirms in paragraphs 1.2.3 to 1.2.5 that in respect of the A127 corridor for growth, a number of studies are progressing, being led by ECC. Within the A127 Corridor for Growth Study there are individual pieces of work which are currently at different stages of planning and development. Where information is available, this has been used to inform modelling. The final outcomes of the study are not yet known and continued working with ECC and other neighbouring authorities will be important.
4.5 The Local Plan confirms the incomplete status of the transport assessment by stating that A127/A128 studies by ECC are "to be fed into the plan". Policy does however aim to maximise the value of railway connectivity and recognises the important role for West Horndon station in future transport provision.
4.6 An Amendment Note to the Transport Assessment dated January 2019, confirms the further information that is to be provided. This includes amongst other things additional junction studies, further trip distribution plots, cross boundary impacts, reassignment impacts and proposed highway mitigation.
4.7 The SA confirms that Highways England's work is not complete in terms of the transport study, that ECC question the use of the A127 corridor over the A12 and Basildon Council has concerns over infrastructure provision relative to DHGV. Thurrock Council favours growth at West Horndon which is closer to existing infrastructure.

Green Belt/Landscape
4.8 When the emerging Plan was last consulted on in early 2018 the Green Belt study was in draft form and had not influenced the site selection process. However, back in 2016 a Landscape Study by Crestwood had identified that Dunton was one of 7 sites out of 203 assessed that makes a 'high contribution' to the Green Belt. The analysis found that "This expansive agricultural site if wholly developed would significantly reduce the gap between West Horndon and Basildon, as well as presenting large scale development along the A127 leading east from the M25." The site was found to be "not contained", to have "significant separation reduction" and a harmful effect on functional countryside. Land at West Horndon is found to make only a 'moderate' contribution to the Green Belt. Development on land to the east of the settlement would decrease the gap to Basildon but still retain a functional open space with very limited or no visual linkages. There would be some loss of countryside if developed. Land to the north-east would lead to larger encroachment of the countryside but not to the coalescence with other towns.
4.9 By 2018 work by Crestwood reached a different conclusion on the contribution made to the Green Belt by land at Dunton Hills. Its importance in terms of contribution to the Green Belt went from 'high' status to 'moderate to high'. Land at West Horndon remained classified as 'moderate'. In our previous representations we submitted that the findings were contrived. We considered that they had been retrospectively prepared to justify the Council's wish to promote DHGV. Detailed site assessment still remained to be undertaken.
4.10 A Green Belt Study Part III was published in January 2019 alongside the Regulation 19 Plan. This maintains that the scope of study did not extend to the identification of sites that should be prioritised for allocation for housing, employment or mixed use. Its conclusions were the same for land at Dunton Hills ('moderate to high' contribution to the Green Belt ) although part of the land at west Horndon (to the east) was altered from a previous moderate status to 'moderate to high'. Once again we find these results to be contrived to fit the Council's desire to promote DHGV.
4.11 Immediately following the previous round of consultation on the emerging Local Plan in January 2018, we became aware of an evidence base document entitled "The Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design options Local Plan Green Infrastructure", dated 07/11/2017. This was undertaken by Essex Place Services and commissioned jointly by Basildon District Council and Brentwood Borough Council. The purpose of this document was stated to be "to undertake a broad scale landscape assessment and present proposals for a landscape buffer and green corridor that could encompass the borough boundaries and give visual separation between two potential residential development sites." i.e. an urban extension to Basildon on its west side and a new Garden Village settlement based on the Dunton Hills area (see appendix 2 which is a plan from this report showing the extent of a landscape buffer that would be required in respect of residential development at Dunton Hills
4.12 Key conclusions of this assessment were:
* an assessment of the landscape as "particularly sensitive landscape areas";
* "Views of the project area from the north, west and south west are likely to be particularly notable due to the gently rising land form";
* "In order to mitigate what could be adverse landscape and visual impacts arising from development, the retention of landscape features and the provision of new landscapes, both green and blue infrastructure are likely to be a significant element of any development";
* "There will also be a need to ensure that residential areas are well protected from the busy transport corridor routes in terms of noise, visual impacts and pollution. The landscape infrastructure required to achieve this will be in addition to the landscape corridor required to provide settlement separation and the potential for connectivity to the wider countryside"; and
* Three landscape corridor Options are considered within the report, concluding that Scheme 3 - i.e. that proposing the maximum land-take - is recommended. This considerable land take within the wider assessment area is proposed to "ensure a good outcome in terms of preventing visual settlement coalescence, allow for diverse landscapes and the ecological enhancements to be achieved".
4.13 Despite the fact that Brentwood Borough Council did jointly commission this evidence base report, it does not feature on its website as an evidence base to the emerging Local Plan. A key finding of this assessment was that landscape mitigation works required would crucially not leave sufficient land for development to accommodate 2,500 new homes at that time proposed in the Draft Plan for Dunton Hills Garden Village, let alone the potentially higher figure of 4,000 beyond the plan period.

APPENDICES
1. Brentwood Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations, Sustainability Appraisal and evidence base. Representations on behalf of Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd in respect of land to the east of West Horndon. March 2018.
2 Extract from "The Dunton Area Landscape Corridor Design Options Local Plan Green Infrastructure", by Essex Place Services for Basildon and Brentwood Councils, 07/11/2017. Appendix 3, Plan showing the extent of a landscape buffer that would be required in respect of residential proposals on land at Dunton Hills.
and
An extract from the Bid document to the Government for Dunton Hills Garden Village which shows how much proposed development could be lost to landscaping.

Attachments:

Support

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

Representation ID: 23714

Received: 01/05/2019

Respondent: Ms Heather Dunbar

Agent: MR ALAN WIPPERMAN

Representation Summary:

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. 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

Full text:

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

Object

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

Representation ID: 23974

Received: 15/05/2019

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to

Change suggested by respondent:

CEG sets out the modifications it considers are necessary to make Policy R01 sound, the reasons for which are explained in question no. 5 above.

Other comments outlined above relating to the supporting text to Policy R01 are left for the Council to consider by way of minor modifications. The modification of Policy R01 in the manner set out below may require some of the supporting text to be aligned accordingly, in the manner described in response to question no. 5.

Proposed Modifications to Chapter 9. Site Allocations

Paragraph 9.4 should be amended for consistency with paragraph 6.36 and to ensure the Plan is effective. as follows:

"Affordable housing should be provided in line with Policy HP05, as well as considerations for
specialist housing, Policy HP04. Some flexibility may be required in relation to the approach to affordable housing and the phased delivery of infrastructure to ensure viable proposals come forward over the life of the Plan."

Paragraph 9.17 iii. should be amended for the same reasons, as follows:

"The Delivery Approach and Legacy Management - setting out the expectations for how the phased delivery of the scheme should be approached to ensure proposals are viable and embed an ethos of co-design and participation, timely and good governance in delivery, and an embedded legacy management of the village assets.


Proposed Modifications to Policy R01

Policy RO1 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

A. In line with Policy SP02, land at Dunton Hills (east of the A128, south of the A127 and north of the C2C railway line, approximately 259.2 ha in size) is allocated for residential-led development to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village.

B. The development will deliver a mix of uses to comprise at least 2,700 homes in the plan period (as part of an overall indicative capacity of around 4,000 homes with the remainder to be delivered beyond 2033) together with the necessary community, employment, utility, transport and green and blue infrastructure (GBI) to support a self-sustaining, thriving and healthy garden village.

C. Successful development of the site allocation will require:

a. the masterplan to be underpinned by Garden Community principles and qualities

b. proposals to creatively address the key site constraints and sensitively respond to the unique qualities and opportunities afforded by the historic landscape and environmental setting to deliver a distinctive and well-designed garden village in line with the Spatial Vision and Strategic Aims and Objectives for Dunton Hills Garden Village; and

c. a holistic and comprehensive locally-led masterplan and design guidance to be developed, co-designed with relevant stakeholders to frame and guide the consistent quality and delivery across the site by different contractors over the delivery period.

D. The proposed development will be required to deliver all the necessary supporting spatial components and infrastructure to address the specific site constraints, potential impacts of development and harness the site opportunities as set out by the strategic Dunton Hills aims and objectives. Permission for mixed-use development will be granted subject to the parameters and components specified below:

a. delivery of at least 2,700 dwellings in the plan period providing a balanced variety of housing typologies and tenure and includes provision of self-build plots in line with Policy HP01; specialist accommodation in line with Policy HP04; and affordable housing in line with Policy HP05;

b. the provision of a minimum of 5 serviced Gypsy and Traveler pitches, in line with Policy HP07(b);

c. land (circa 5.5 ha) for employment space (in line with Policy PC03) to accommodate a creative range of creative employment uses suitable for a vibrant village centre and a predominantly residential area, including use class A1-A5 and appropriate B class uses;

d. land (circa 7.9 hectares) for a co-located secondary school (Use Class D1);

e. land (circa 2.1 hectares each) for two co-located primary school and early years and childcare nurseries, preferably co-located (Use Class D1);

f. land (circa 0.13 hectares each) for two stand-alone further early years and childcare nurseries (Use Class D1);

g. community and health infrastructure proportional to the scale of development, and in line with best practice principles of healthy design;

h. green and blue infrastructure to be a minimum of circa 50% of the total land area including private gardens and green roofs;

i. retail the provision of main town centre uses to form the vibrant village core in the form of a 'District Shopping Centre' with additional Local Centre(s) in line with Policy PC08, as appropriate to the scale and phasing of the development;

j. the provision of new and enhanced transport infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of development and to support sustainable modes of travel to ensure connectivity to key destinations, increase transport choice, support changes in travel behaviour, and to minimise the impact of traffic on the local and wider network, in line with Policy BE16 and as detailed in R01(ii) G-J; and

k. strategically designed and appropriately phased infrastructure, employing the most up to date technologies to ensure a smart, sustainable and a resilient basis for drainage and flood management in line with Policy BE08, water management including potable/non-potable and opportunities for grey water harvesting in line with BE03, efficient and cost saving energy networks in line with Policy BE04, superfast broadband in line with Policy BE10.

Full text:

Introduction

CEG supports the Strategic Allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV). CEG's objections relate primarily to specific aspects of Policy R01 and what modifications are considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound. Other minor modifications to improve the clarity of the Local Plan are also suggested, and it is indicated which representations fall into this category.

CEG is the main developer which has been working on the Strategic Allocation and the proposals for DHGV for several years. As the Local Plan indicates (paragraph 9.11), Dunton Hills was selected as one of 14 proposed garden villages in England receiving funds to take plans forward and help the timely delivery of the development. CEG has undertaken significant work on all technical and delivery aspects of taking forward a development of the scale and type described in the Local Plan, advised by an experienced professional team.

Informed by this detailed work CEG can confirm that the DHGV allocation site is suitable, available and achievable for development in the terms set out in the Planning Practice Guidance. Bearing in mind the site will be released from the Green Belt at the culmination of this Local Plan process, CEG is working on the basis that planning permission will be granted for DHGV soon after the adoption of the Local Plan.

CEG is a developer with a proven track record of delivery of strategic sites of this scale and type, and is an active participant in the garden village agenda across the country. CEG is experienced at working with housebuilders, affordable housing providers and other developers as well as the many other stakeholders involved in the delivery of large sites such as this. The projected lead-in times and build out rates for development take account of this experience and the detailed work undertaken on this site and support the assumptions adopted by the Council in the Local Plan. As well as the delivery of a minimum of 2,700 new homes over the plan period, the allocation provides for up to 4,000 new homes, with the remainder provided after 2033.



Paragraphs 9.1 - 9.7

CEG supports the general approach outlined in these paragraphs and agrees that the site allocations, including Dunton Hills Garden Village, reflect the spatial strategy and strategic objectives set out earlier in the Local Plan.

CEG supports the approach of setting out of each policy by the sub-headings specified, although representations are made below on what is set out for DHGV in Policy R01.

CEG supports the cross-reference to other policies in paragraph 9.4 to avoid unnecessary repetition in the Local Plan, but it should be noted CEG has submitted objections to Policy HP04. Consistent with paragraph 6.36 of the Local Plan, and to ensure the Plan is effective, the approach to affordable housing, including mix and tenure, should allow for some flexibility to provide for possible changes in circumstances over the lifetime of the Plan. This should then be carried forward into paragraph 9.17 iii, with reference made to viability as an important aspect which will inform the delivery approach, including the phasing of infrastructure, and legacy management. Modifications are proposed in our response to question no. 6 to this effect.

Dunton Hills Garden Village

Background, paragraphs 9.8 - 9.14

CEG supports the selection of DHGV as a Strategic Allocation, which is consistent with policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which the Local Plan refers to in paragraph 9.8.

CEG supports the strategy that in Brentwood the supply of new homes can best be achieved by the planning of DHGV in the way proposed by the Council in combination with the other allocations. The site of DHGV is well located, the proposals will be well designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF.

It is noted that the Local Plan (paragraph 9.10) refers to the fact that the Strategic Allocation at Dunton Hills was selected to meet the 'majority' of Brentwood's housing need, but this overstates the position as it gives the impression it will deliver more than half. The Strategic Allocation will meet 35% of the housing need over the plan period - which would be more appropriately described as a 'significant proportion' of Brentwood's housing need. The significant majority of the need will be met from a range of other sites across the Borough. A minor modification is suggested to clarify this matter.

CEG supports the Council's general approach to determining where housing needs should be met and the unique opportunity to deliver a sustainable new settlement at DHGV. CEG also agrees that this approach aligns with the Borough of Villages character explained elsewhere in the Local Plan, and would continue to maintain characteristics of Green Belt openness.

A Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills, paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18

CEG supports the spatial vision as expressed in this part of the Local Plan (paragraphs 9.14 - 9.18), and as set out in the three interrelated policy domains, namely site requirements; the spatial design; and the delivery approach and legacy management. These three domains are then carried forward into the presentation of Policy R01 itself, and this approach is generally supported.

DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22

CEG generally supports the three Strategic Aims and Objectives and the contents of each of them. However, the relationship of these Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22), the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17), and the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) is unclear.

In paragraph 9.19 it indicates that the three overarching aims, each supported by sub-objectives, provide the link between the vision - presumably the Spatial Vision for Dunton Hills - and the development strategy. It then states that these form the fundamental development principles to help shape and inform the development of a masterplan and guide decision-taking.

CEG considers clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.19, on how the Strategic Aims and Objectives inform Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined. Such clarity could be provided by stating that the Strategic Aims and Objectives underpin the requirements of the Policy R01 and the supporting text in paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89 provides further guidance on the application of that policy.

With respect to paragraph 9.20 (iii) the wording is potentially onerous and inconsistent with national policy. It relates to heritage assets so the reference to natural assets should be removed or the title changed. With respect to the heritage aspects it should refer to the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in line with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Development Principles, paragraph 9.23

As stated above the relationship of the Development Principles (paragraph 9.23) with the three policy domains (paragraph 9.17) and the Strategic Aims and Objectives (paragraphs 9.20 - 9.22) is unclear. CEG questions whether the Development Principles are necessary or couldn't be incorporated within the Strategic Aims and Objectives, notwithstanding the fact it generally supports what they are seeking to achieve.

CEG considers that if the Development Principles are retained further clarity should be provided in the text at paragraph 9.23, on the relationship with Policy R01, this being the policy against which a masterplan and a planning application for development at DHGV will ultimately be determined.

CEG objects to paragraph 9.23 (i) where Green Belt, landscape capacity and environmental impacts are conflated within a development principle entitled Design and Build with Nature. New Green Belt boundaries will be clearly defined with the Strategic Allocation using physical features that are readily recognisable and Green Belt isn't a landscape or environmental designation, in any event. The reference to Green Belt should be removed.




Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation

CEG generally supports Policy R01(I) and what it is seeking to achieve, subject to the representations outlined below.

Criterion A

There is a very small difference between the size of the site set out in criterion A (and paragraph 9.12) and that contained in Appendix 2. The difference is insignificant but a minor modification would ensure consistency.

Criterion B

CEG proposes wording changes to ensure the presentation of the number of new homes is consistent with criterion D, insofar as the number to be provided over the plan period is presented as a minimum, and to ensure the plan is positively prepared in this regard.

Criterion D

CEG proposes wording changes for reasons of clarity and to provide some limited flexibility, for example, in the amount of land to be provided for employment space, consistent with the approach adopted elsewhere in the policy for other uses.

With respect to sub-criterion (a) CEG supports reference to the provision of a variety of housing typologies and tenures which will help create a holistic new settlement in line with garden community principles and assist in delivering the new homes at DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) and (e) CEG objects to the references to co-location which are considered too prescriptive and the policy is not justified. CEG considers that sub-criterion (e) should refer to two primary schools, 'preferably co-located' with early years and childcare nurseries, which would make this consistent with the wording of paragraph 7.100 of the Local Plan.

As far as sub-criterion (d) is concerned CEG considers that the reference to co-location should be removed, with the location of the secondary school left to be determined in the masterplan process, in consultation with relevant stakeholders including Essex County Council; or reference made in the Social Infrastructure section to the potential benefits of co-location in Policy R01 (II) which deals with the Spatial Design of DHGV.

With respect to sub-criterion (h) CEG generally supports the proportion of the total land area of the Strategic Allocation that policy requires for green and blue infrastructure (GBI). However, CEG objects to the fact the figure is presented as a minimum requirement which is prescriptive and considers that some limited flexibility is required in this figure, consistent with how other land uses are presented in the policy. CEG also considers that policy should clarify that GBI includes private gardens and green roofs to make the measurement basis clearer.

CEG considers that there is considerable opportunity for high quality GBI which will be a significant feature of DHGV and central to the achievement of garden community principles. CEG fully supports its inclusion and generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in Policy R01 (II). CEG considers this should inform the overall amount of GBI that is provided, as well its design; and that the precise amount and design of GBI should flow out of the masterplan process. This will ensure the Plan is positively prepared.

This approach is consistent with guidance on this matter from the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), which states that, "As a general rule, 50% of the land total in a new Garden City should be green infrastructure, including private gardens and green roofs and this should be clearly stated in local planning policy". (Practical Guides for Creating Successful New Communities, Guide 7: Planning for Green and Prosperous Places, TCPA, January 2018, page 17)

With respect to sub-criterion (i) CEG objects to the reference to "retail provision to form the vibrant village core" as this is not consistent with the NPPF which states that the range of uses permitted should be defined as part of a positive strategy for the future of each centre (NPPF, paragraph 85. (b)).

The provision of a District Centre and Local Centre(s) within DHGV is supported by CEG as they will form the heart of the new garden community. To provide for the needs of the new community these centres should provide a mix of main town centre uses as defined by the glossary in the NPPF. Policy currently refers only to retail provision, which could be interpreted as only Class A1 uses, when a mix of uses should be encouraged. This will ensure the plan is positively prepared.

Policy R01 (II): Spatial Design of Dunton Hills Garden Village

Suggested wording changes are proposed for reasons of clarity to ensure consistency with other parts of the policy.

Criterion C

As was stated above CEG generally supports the policy relating to the spatial design for GBI outlined in criterion C. However, CEG objects to sub-criterion (f) as it is inconsistent with national policy. The Strategic Allocation involves the release of the land from the Green Belt so the GBI on the eastern boundary that forms part of allocation cannot reinforce the beneficial purpose and use of the Green Belt in that zone, as policy requires. Amendments are proposed which rewords the policy so that it can assist in achieving objectives of visual separation of settlements and improving landscape and habitat value, whilst forming a robust and clearly defined boundary using physical features that are likely to be permanent. This is in accordance with paragraph 139(f) of the NPPF.

Criterion E

CEG supports the approach of safeguarding and maintaining key views within the development. In relation to criterion E(a) a small change is proposed to reflect that it is visual corridors that are important rather than landscape corridors. This acknowledges that not all visual corridors need to be landscape driven. In relation to criterion E(b) a minor change is suggested to make it clear that the visual separation is between DHGV and Basildon. Lastly, in relation to criterion E(c), it is proposed to remove this criterion as this does not relate to 'views' and is in any event already addressed elsewhere in the plan by virtue of Policy BE02(a).



Criterion F

With respect to criterion F, CEG objects to the wording of the policy as it is inconsistent with national policy and modifications are proposed to bring it in line with the NPPF.
Paragraph 185 of the NPPF, requires that "Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;..."
In relation to designated heritage assets, paragraphs 195 and 196 provide for harm to heritage assets to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. As such, there are circumstances where not all heritage assets will be "sustained and enhanced". A modification is proposed in our response to question no. 6 to ensure consistency with the NPPF.

With respect to sub-criterion (b) CEG objects to the prescriptive nature of the requirement to integrate the listed farmstead as part of the Dunton Hills Village Centre, as it is considered that this isn't justified. The NPPF emphasises that the conservation of designated heritage assets is of great weight and that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme; there are therefore a number of acceptable design solutions that respect the setting of the listed farmhouse. The reference to the historic core overstates the position as there is only a small collection of farm buildings. The policy should refer to the integration of the farmstead with new development at DHGV more generally, so that the solution flows out of the masterplan process and a consideration of the landscape and heritage assessments referred to in the policy. This would allow the farmstead to be integrated into the Village Centre but also allow an alternative to be pursued if a better option emerges.

With respect to criterion F(c) detailed matters relating to any alterations of listing buildings to accommodate new uses would be considered via planning and listed building consent applications and this should be simplified to aid clarity.

The proposed modifications to deal with the issues outlined above would have knock-on effects on the explanatory text which we consider below.

Criterion G and H

CEG considers that criterion G and H relating to sustainable travel and transport aren't positively prepared as they don't fully recognise changing patterns of travel and mobility that will reduce the need for travel and impact on the spatial design of DHGV.

Criterion G should recognise that 'virtual mobility' which includes internet shopping and working from home or locally are good sustainable ways of living and don't involve 'transport' or reduce the need for it. Furthermore, an amendment is proposed to discourage single occupancy car use rather than reference being made to short internal trips. The length of trip is less relevant and multi-occupancy car trips may be more sustainable than other forms of motorised travel and should not be discouraged. Sequentially the priority is: virtual mobility; active travel (walking and cycling); shared travel (shared cars, buses and trains); and then single occupancy cars.

With respect to criterion H, CEG considers for this to be positively prepared it should refer to 'transport improvements' rather than 'mitigations'. This is consistent with the amendments proposed to criterion G, as mitigation is required to in relation to impacts whereas this spatial design intention should be to minimise impacts though design and management. There is also a need to provide some flexibility to respond to changes in public transport infrastructure over the plan period.

With respect to sub-criterion (d) to ensure the plan is positively prepared an amendment is proposed to reflect the fact the developer of DHGV cannot provide the improvements sought directly, but can provide a financial contribution towards their provision. This is consistent with the approach adopted in sub-criterion (c).

Criterion K
CEG has made representations to criterion D (i) above relating to positively planning for main town centre uses in the district and local centres in DHGV and these should be carried through to criterion K for the same reasons. Furthermore, for the policy to be effective greater clarity should be provided over the form of assessment to ensure the Plan is positively prepared. Any study should assess the needs of the new community considering existing provision in the surrounding area, which would include the existing centres of Laindon and West Horndon, and the new village centre proposed with Policy R02 on land at West Horndon Industrial Estate.
CEG considers sub-criterion (a) should be deleted in line the representations above in relation to criterion F.

Policy R01 (III): Spatial Delivery and Legacy Management

CEG generally supports the third part of Policy R01. Several minor amendments are proposed which will give the policy greater clarity and ensure its consistent with other parts of the plan. The reference to a Jobs Brokerage Scheme should be defined in the Glossary or a scheme mentioned in more general terms the aim of which is to ensure jobs go to local people. This aim is supported by CEG.

Paragraphs 9.24 - 9.89

Please refer to CEG's representations above on DHGV Strategic Aims and Objectives, paragraphs 9.19 - 9.22.

In relation to paragraph 9.40, some modifications are proposed to remove reference to the 'significance' of landscape features and key views, instead requiring them to be retained and enhanced. This recognises that not all landscape features or key views will have a heritage interest and the use of 'significance' in the NPPF specifically relates to heritage assets. We have suggested that paragraph 9.40 becomes two paragraphs as the last sentence does not relate to landscape features and key views.

CEG's representations outlined above would have some knock-on implications on what is contained within these paragraphs, albeit quite limited. For example, CEG generally supports paragraphs 9.45 - 9.50 dealing with Embedding Heritage Assets into the new development. No reference is made in this section to the need for listed farmhouse being incorporated into the village or district centre. For the reasons stated above we consider this is a matter that should flow from the outcome of the masterplan process. However, in the section on Social Place, in paragraph 9.60 it does refer to the farmstead being incorporated into the village core and for the reasons set out above, we consider such a reference should be deleted

Attachments:

Support

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

Representation ID: 23998

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

The 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: (see attachment). The IDP contains a similar table for highway infrastructure improvements and those relevant to Dunton Hills Garden Village are listed in Table 3 below: (see attachment).

Full text:

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.

Attachments:

Support

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

Representation ID: 24000

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Bellway Homes and Crest Nicholson

Agent: AECOM

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 24146

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Mr J Nicholls and Mr A Biglin (Land owners)

Agent: Sworders

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The eastern edge of the DHGV allocation follows the Borough boundary with Basildon. The new settlement would adjoin Basildon's Green Belt, leaving a narrow strip between DHGV and the existing built up area of Basildon. At one point, both Councils intended to locate new settlements in this location, however, Basildon no longer propose this, which calls into question whether the authorities have complied with the duty to co-operate.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Plan places significant reliance on the timely delivery of Dunton Hills Garden Village. This is not a positive strategy for meeting housing need and does not provide the flexibility required to address changes in circumstances. The allocation should be complemented by the allocation of small sites, to improve deliverability.

Full text:

RE Planning Policy Framework 1.24 - 1.25
Planning Policy Framework
Since the Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation, which took place in early 2018, the revised NPPF has been published. This Plan will therefore now be examined against the policies set out in the revised NPPF (February 2019). Paragraph 212 of the NPPF confirms this, stating that:
'Plans may ...need to be revised to reflect policy changes which this replacement Framework has made. This should be progressed as quickly as possible, either through a partial revision or by preparing a new plan.'
We question whether, in light of this fundamental change to the planning policy context, as well as changes to the introduction of the Standard Methodology for calculating housing need and the Housing Delivery Test, which will be discussed below, the Plan should progress to Examination.
In addition, we note that significant elements of the evidence base to the Plan, which were prepared under the 2012 NPPF, have not been updated.
For example, the Site Assessment Methodology and Summary of Outcomes - Working Draft provides the basis on which sites have been assessed as suitable for development and whether they should be allocated in the Plan. This document has not been amended to reflect the publication of the revised NPPF, or the Standard Methodology. The paper still refers to making provision for 'slightly above 380 dwellings per annum'; in fact, this number will need to increase significantly, for reasons set out below.
On this basis, we believe that the Plan is unsound. It is not positively prepared because it does not make provision for the Borough's objectively assessed needs and it is not justified because the evidence base on which it is based is not proportionate.
The Plan should be updated so that the housing need is calculated based on the Government's standard methodology for calculating housing need, as well as reflecting the findings of the Housing Delivery Test. This will significantly increase the housing numbers and the number of sites required. Further consultation should then take place on a revised draft Plan, before it is submitted for Examination.

RE: Policy R01 (i) Garden Village Strategic Allocation
Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation: Policy R01 (I)
Land at Dunton Hills (east of the A128, south of the A127 and north of the C2C railway line, approximately 259.2 ha in size) is allocated for residential-led development to deliver Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).
The policy states that development will deliver a mix of uses to comprise around 2,700 homes in the plan period (as part of an overall indicative capacity of around 4,000 homes to be delivered beyond 2033 - subject to further feasibility and assessment of impact). This number has increased from 2,500 homes stated in the Preferred Site Allocations Consultation document of March 2018.
We object to this policy to propose a new settlement to deliver 2,700 dwellings during the plan period to meet a significant proportion the Borough's housing needs. Whilst we do not object to the principle of a new settlement, we do not consider that it should be relied upon to deliver such a significant proportion of the Borough's housing need within the timeframe envisaged.
We consider there to be both generic and site-specific constraints to delivery. Delivery of this strategic allocation is crucial to being able to demonstrate and maintain a five-year supply in the early Plan period, meaning the Plan fails the tests of soundness as set out in paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
It is considered that such a significant reliance on a single site within a Local Plan is not a sustainable approach to meet housing need and is one that has been heavily criticised by a number of Inspectors at recent Local Plan Examinations, for example Braintree District, Tendring District and Colchester Borough councils in relation to the North Essex Garden Communities.
Research published by consultancy Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (Start to Finish: How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver? November 2016) found that average planning approval period and delivery of first dwelling (i.e. from the date of the validation of the planning application) for sites of over 2,000 dwellings was just under seven years. This compares to just under five and a half years for sites of between 500 - 999 dwellings, just over four years for sites of 100 - 499 dwellings and just under three years for sites up to 99 dwellings.
The housing trajectory suggest that DHGV will deliver 750 dwellings by 2026. However, given the recent research, adopting the lag of seven years from a Plan adoption date before the end of 2019 (which we consider highly ambitious) would mean there would be no deliveries on site until after 2026.
Paragraph 9.33 states that of the 6,700 homes, 4,000 are to be delivered after 2033. However, this is caveated by the statement 'subject to further feasibility and assessment of impact', calling into doubt whether 4,000 can in fact be delivered on site.
The Plan places significant reliance on the timely delivery of Dunton Hills Garden Village. This is not a positive strategy for meeting housing need and does not provide the flexibility required to address changes in circumstances. The allocation should be complemented by the allocation of small sites, to improve deliverability.
We wish to participate in the Examination to set out the case that additional smaller sites should be allocated, to ensure the Plan's deliverability and to ensure a constant delivery of new homes.

RE Policy SP02 - Managing Growth
Housing Delivery
The Plan proposes that as 'the high proportion of designated Green Belt within the Borough makes it extremely difficult to achieve a five year supply' (Paragraph 4.19), a greater proportion of the required homes are forecast to be delivered in the period beyond 2023. Policy SP02 therefore sets out a stepped trajectory of delivery of 310 homes per annum to 2023, followed by a higher target of 584 per year to 2033.
We do not believe that Policy SP02 is sound because it does not provide an appropriate strategy to comply with the requirements of the NPPF, which states in paragraph 23 that:
'Strategic policies should provide a clear strategy for bringing sufficient land forward, and at a sufficient rate, to address objectively assessed needs over the plan period, in line with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.'
The strategy does not result in the delivery of housing throughout the Plan period. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF requires strategic policies to include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the Plan period. Appendix 1 of the Plan sets out this housing trajectory, which demonstrates that no units will be delivered in 2019/2020 from the site allocations, and only 66 units are proposed to be delivered in 2020/2021, with 318 in 2021/2022 and 632 in 2023/2024.
We question whether this is an appropriate strategy, and believe that on this basis, Policy SP02 is unsound because it is not justified.
To set out the case that the Plan should allocate additional, smaller sites, to enable the Plan to deliver homes throughout the Plan period.

RE Local Housing Need - Paragraphs 4.11 - 4.21
Housing Need
In October 2018, the Government consulted on technical changes to its proposed Standard Methodology to calculate housing need based not on the 2016 household projections published by the Office for National Statistics, but on the 2014 household projections published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). These revised projections result in a housing figure for the Borough of 456 dwellings per annum.
In February 2019, the Government published a summary of the responses to its October 2018 technical consultation and its view on the way forward, in which it confirmed that its proposed approach provided the most appropriate approach 'for providing stability and certainty to the planning system in the short term' and that Local Planning Authorities should not use the 2016 household projections, which resulted in lower housing numbers, as a reason to justify lower housing need.
The Plan states that the Borough's annual housing requirement is still 380 homes per annum, based on the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2016). However, paragraph 4.16 of the Plan sets out the intention to make provision for an additional housing supply buffer, which provides a 20% uplift to the annual housing figure of 380 units, resulting in provision of 456 dwellings per annum, resulting in a requirement for 7,752 dwellings from 2016 - 2033. This is the same figure as required by the Government's Standard Methodology for Calculating Housing Need.
However, Brentwood Borough Council was recently identified in the publication of the Government's Housing Delivery Test as an authority which has delivered less than 85% of its housing requirement, and therefore has to add a 20% buffer to its housing land supply figure.
We therefore object to the housing requirement set out in the Plan on the basis that it is insufficient to meet the Borough's needs. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF requires local planning authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing. It expects evidence to be used to ensure that the Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the other policies set out in the NPPF. The Plan does not do this; it only makes provision for the OAN and does not provide for the additional 20% buffer, as required under the Housing Delivery Test.
It cannot be positively prepared to meet objectively assessed requirements and therefore cannot be considered sound.
The Plan should be updated to make provision for the Borough's objectively assessed need, to take account of the figure in the Government's Standard Methodology for Calculating Housing Need, with an additional 20% buffer to reflect the Housing Delivery Test.
If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary. To set out why the Plan is not making adequate provision for new housing.

RE Figure 2.3 - Settlement Hierarchy
Settlement hierarchy
To promote sustainable growth in rural areas, the NPPF (2019) 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. To ensure the Local Plan responds to this, a broad Settlement Hierarchy Assessment has been undertaken to understand the role, function and relationship of Brentwood's dispersed settlements.
The Plan sets out the settlement hierarchy in the Borough. Ingrave is classed as a Category 3 settlement. Whilst we support the classification of Ingrave as a "Category 3 - Large Village", we object to the inconsistent treatment of this settlement in comparison to other settlements occupying the same level in the hierarchy.
For example, the other Large Villages of Kelvedon Hatch, Blackmore and Hook End/Tipps Cross (previously a smaller village) have been allocated development. However, neither Ingrave and Herongate (now linked), Wyatts Green nor Mountnessing, have been allocated any development. Mountnessing has already accommodated some development though existing permissions on previously developed sites, but the same is not true for Ingrave.
The moratorium of growth in these villages is contrary to the NPPF, which states that to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The NPPF goes further, stating that Plans should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive especially where this will support local services (paragraph 78).
As drafted, the Plan is not sound. It identifies Ingrave as a Category 3 settlement but does not allocate housing in or near the settlement. This is not an appropriate strategy and therefore the Plan is not justified in this respect.
Additional land for housing should be allocated at Ingrave to meet local, settlement specific housing needs to address localised affordability issues but also retain the working age population in the village to ensure the viability and vitality of local shops and services.
Paragraph 2.16 of the Plan notes that, in relation to Category 3 settlements;
'Brownfield redevelopment opportunities will be encouraged to meet local needs, and policies in this Plan will help to bring forward nearby redevelopment of brownfield sites in the Green Belt where appropriate.'
This emphasis on bringing forward brownfield sites 'nearby' Category 3 settlements is supported. This approach would provide a more flexible approach and would enable sites such as our client's site to come forward.
We wish to participate in the Examination to set out the case that additional sites should be allocated in and near to Ingrave, a sustainable, Category 3 settlement.

RE: Site Assessment Methodology and Summary of Outcomes - Working Draft (2018)
The spatial strategy, as set out at paragraph 3.13, focuses upon the sequential use of land, which prioritises using brownfield land and to only release Green Belt land after all sustainably located, suitable, available and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified as allocations. This is in line with paragraph 137 of the NPPF, which requires that:
'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.'
However, we do not consider that the capacity of brownfield sites has been fully explored. The Stage 2 assessment process discounts sites where they are considered to be in an unsustainable location, (which included sites in the Green Belt with no connecting boundary to an existing urban area,) before considering the potential to use brownfield land. This has resulted in sites such as site 183, our client's site, being discounted prior to any assessment of the positive benefits of the re-use of this brownfield site and whether the location is sufficiently sustainable or can be made sustainable.
Specifically, in relation to this site, it is already serviced by water, sewerage and electricity so sufficient infrastructure is already available. Residents of the site would have opportunities to make sustainable journeys on foot, by cycle and by car-sharing. The unnamed road outside the site frontage is classified as a Public Bridleway; accommodating pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. This provides a pleasant walking route between the site and village of Ingrave. There are also a number of Public Footpaths in the vicinity of the site which provide access to nearby towns and villages such as Brentwood, Shenfield and Billericay which offer a wider range of local amenities. The nearest school is approximately 1.5 miles walking distance and the site is approximately 2 miles from the station at Shenfield, soon to accommodate Crossrail.
Paragraph 103 of the NPPF acknowledges that:
"opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision taking.'
Paragraph 102 also states that:
'Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that c) opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued.'
Figure 4.2 of the Plan sets out how different types of land use will contribute to how the overall housing need will be met. The Plan's spatial strategy is unsound because it excluded all sites which do not meet the distance thresholds from existing settlements, and has not fully taken into account opportunities offered by smaller sites in the Green Belt, which could offer sustainable transport modes, and make a small but important contribution to meeting housing need.
In light of the higher housing numbers required, the Plan should be revised to re-assess all sites which do not meet the distance thresholds from existing settlements, and to take into account opportunities offered by smaller sites in the Green Belt, which could offer sustainable transport modes, and make a small but important contribution to meeting housing need.
We wish to participate in the Examination to set out the case that a further assessment of sites is required, and the opportunity should be taken to re-assess sites which were previously excluded.


RE Spatial Strategy
The draft Plan relies on the delivery of strategic sites, to meet a significant proportion of its housing requirement. Figure 4.2 of the Plan identifies that the Dunton Hills Garden Village strategic allocation will provide 35% of the total housing requirement. We note that in the Regulation 18 document, three strategic sites were proposed; this has now increased to five.
We object to the strategy relying on several large developments to deliver such a large proportion of growth for the Borough, particularly within the first five years from adoption. As set out in Appendix 1, this strategy results in the delivery of no new housing in the early years of the Plan.
Paragraph 68 of the NPPF notes that:
'Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area and are often built out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites local planning authorities should identify, through the development plan and brownfield registers, land to accommodate at least 10% of their housing requirement on sites no larger than one hectare.'

The Plan should be reviewed and sites identified to meet the higher housing number of 547 dwellings per annum, through the addition of smaller site allocations. Smaller sites are more deliverable over the early years of the Plan period since they typically require less investment in infrastructure, are within single ownership and have fewer complex issues to address at planning application stage. This is in contrast to larger strategic sites which are often reliant on significant infrastructure improvements, comprise multiple ownerships, require complex legal agreements and typically take much longer to deliver.
Allocating additional smaller sites will have multiple benefits; it will increase the flexibility of the Plan, it will contribute to the five year housing land supply, it will enable sites which do not require significant infrastructure provision to come forward quickly, and it will attract smaller house building companies who will not be present upon larger strategic sites.
To set out the case that the Plan should allocate additional, smaller sites, to improve the flexibility of the Plan, to ensure that the Plan complies with the NPPF, and to enable the Plan to deliver homes throughout the Plan period.

Attachments:

Object

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

Representation ID: 24249

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I object to DHGV because Brentwood residents want development in north of the borough, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove Dunton Hills Garden Village from Plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24250

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I object to DHGV because Brentwood residents want development in north of the borough as easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24251

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I object to DHGV because Brentwood residents want development in north of the borough as these areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24252

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free. You will not be providing any funding for anything. Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24254

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Brentwood describe Dunton as: - (A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
& (B) importantly describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem). Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24255

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

NEW TOWN: Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24256

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The costs to ensure no problems at DHGV alone means site is unviable but then Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure. Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents. For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DSHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24257

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Brentwood Council now advise after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development. However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24258

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24259

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

[The plan] Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known. From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24260

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24261

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24262

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', so how can anyone accurately comment? What are the facts and which are fiction! Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24263

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Factual information has been rigged / amended, given a different slant / representation by Brentwood Council. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all. BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose. VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin

Object

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

Representation ID: 24264

Received: 28/05/2019

Respondent: Mr Jeffrey Goodwin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period. (16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches). But understand may well double in size in future.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove DHGV from plan

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Brentwood Councils Local Plan
& re Dunton Hills Garden Village

I object to DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE (DHGV) for the following reasons: -
BRENTWOOD RESIDENTS WANT DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH OF THE BOROUGH, North Brentwood, Pilgrims Hatch and Greenfield sites North of A12 to keep families together and to provide Affordable/Social Housing.
Easy to build and have major new roads e.g. to M25 and others upgraded etc.
These areas have superb Infrastructure, Air Quality and other major benefits.

PLEASE NOTE:
The council state nothing is your problem to confirm is safe & risk free.
You will not be providing any funding for anything.
Infrastructure is always someone else's problem: NHS; Essex County Council, Bus Companies, C2C's etc.
ALSO THE COUNCILS LACK OF PROFESSIONALISM IS CERTAINLY OUTSTANDING, as no-one can trust your facts without checking.
For better information and accurate facts, rather than Brentwood Councils waffle VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK
1. THE COSTS TO ENSURE NO PROBLEMS AT DHGV alone means site UNVIABLE BUT THEN Brentwood's Political Bias & Greed takes over (see point 4).
2. Brentwood describe Dunton as: -
(A) Considered Outside of Brentwood's District
&
(B) IMPORTANTLY describe it as Fenland (Meaning low marshy area & together with their reports likely to Flood/Have Surface Water besides Soil & Water Contamination besides the Major Gas Pipe-Line but state is not Brentwood Councils problem ).
Is actually the worst site considered (which is a critical drainage area) confirming is unsuitable for development but considers is the most profitable and keeps residents out of Brentwood's main area.
3. (NEW TOWN) Currently reported 4,000 New Homes, in their January 2018 Local Plan (as advised intend to bring forward further proposed development and then increased further as understand site could double in size as far more land available to them).
4. DHGV is quoted as a self-sufficient site; however, Brentwood's Director of Strategic Planning has stated will rely on Basildon's Infrastructure.
Thereby, all income profits go to Brentwood Council and year on year maintenance costs and problems fall on Basildon Council and its Residents.
For Brentwood Council is a WIN - WIN situation: will receive over £36,000,000 from government and vast council tax with little outlay.
5. Brentwood Council is aware their Local Plan (at least in part) especially regarding DHGV is unsound.
6. Brentwood Council NOW ADVISE after over 4 years is producing an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which will provide an overview of the infrastructure requirements associated with the Local Plan and how Brentwood intend to support the development.
However unable to supply any information to back the IDP comment!
Again proves that the Planning Department officers lied when supplying information and why unable to answer simple basic questions.
7. It appears the council deliberately want to proceed even though the facts quoted cannot be factually backed up as currently appear flawed and rigged.
8. Appears council and the Council Leader, Louise Mckinley are trying their utmost to push through DHGV, without proper scrutiny, as concerned would not be passed by Planning Inspectorate if actual facts known.
From their actions appears they do not want General Public or Residents to obtain information.
9. Brentwood Council including Planning and Louise McKinley, council leader, unable to answer relevant questions with factual information, only waffle.
10. Brentwood Council admit unable to supply Masterplan or what Infrastructure will actually be provided (and have lied about for over 4 years) as is currently only their thinking, ifs/maybes and may never be built.
11. Brentwood Council and the council leader are deliberately not responding to outstanding questions or emails (some nearly 2 months, well overdue) as appear extremely concerned that then could easily prove Reports have been Fabricated/Manipulated to misrepresent the best areas for development and in fact where the best areas are.
12. E.g. Brentwood Council dismissed building 2,300 New Homes at Pilgrims Hatch for reasons given, however, the same and worse applies to Dunton.
13. All consultations on Brentwood Councils Local Plan, have been bought into disrepute as no-one knows the real details/facts on the various proposed sites as Brentwood Council 'Keep On Moving The Goalposts', SO HOW CAN ANYONE ACCURATELY COMMENT!
What are the facts and which are fiction!
14. In the submission for the £528,000 grant, listed 10 Key Milestones to be completed by October 2018, yet the council have admitted have not carry out any, so how can Brentwood Council be trusted.
15. FACTUAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN RIGGED/AMENDED, GIVEN A DIFFERENT SLANT/REPRESENTATION by Brentwood Council.
16. There are more points but this is enough for now, without listing them all.
BRENTWOOD COUNCIL ARE LIKE THE PROVERB, 'A ROLLING STONE GATHERS NO MOSS', thereby they change details/comments at whim to whatever suits their purpose.

VISIT WWW.DUNTONEXPLOITATION.CO.UK FOR MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION
Brentwood Councils Local Plan, January 2018, shows 4,000 New Homes and advised wish built in current planning period.
(16,000 people and 8,000 vehicles besides over 30+ Travellers/Gypsy pitches).
BUT UNDERSTAND MAY WELL DOUBLE SIZE IN FUTURE!

Intend to build well over 50% of their New Homes target (appears nearly 65%), SOUTH of the A127 which they consider OUTSIDE of Brentwood Districts AREA.
It is obvious that Brentwood intends to build a New Town rather than a Village and will use every means at their disposal to build DHGV even though the Local Development Plans details after scrutiny do not stack up.
Have requested information NOW so have time to check the facts and stop this unethical development in its tracks, unless the council can supply accurate documentation which stands up to scrutiny!
Please acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely

Jeffrey Goodwin