National Grid has appointed Wood to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.
We are instructed by our client to submit the following representation with regard to the current consultation on the above document.
About National Grid
National Grid Electricity Transmission plc (NGET) owns and maintains the electricity transmission system in England and Wales and National Grid Electricity System Operator (NGESO) operates the electricity transmission network across the UK. The energy is then distributed to the eight electricity distribution network operators across England, Wales and Scotland. National Grid Gas plc (NGG) owns and operates the high-pressure gas transmission system across the UK. In the UK, gas leaves the transmission system and enters the UK's four gas distribution networks where pressure is reduced for public use.
National Grid previously owned part of the gas distribution system known as 'National Grid Gas Distribution limited (NGGDL). Since May 2018, NGGDL is now a separate entity called 'Cadent Gas'. To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect National Grid's assets. Proposed sites crossed or in close proximity to National Grid infrastructure: Following a review of the above development plan, the following sites have been identified as being crossed or in close proximity to National Grid infrastructure. Further details are provided in the able overleaf.
Electricity Transmission: [please see the attached document]
Gas Transmission: [please see the attached document]
Please see enclosed plan referenced ET329, GT111, GT112 & GT113 at Appendix 2. The proposed sites are crossed by a National Grid high voltage electricity transmission overhead line and/or National Grid underground high-pressure gas pipeline.
The statutory safety clearances between overhead lines, the ground, and built structures must not be infringed. Where changes are proposed to ground levels beneath an existing line then it is important that changes in ground levels do not result in safety clearances being infringed. National Grid can, on request, provide to developers detailed line profile drawings that detail the height of conductors, above ordnance datum, at a specific site. You can find National Grid's guidelines for developing near Over Head Lines here: ttps://www.nationalgrid.com/sites/default/files/documents/Development%20near%20overhead%20lines_0.pdf
Electricity Distribution
UK Power Networks owns and operates the local electricity distribution network in Brentwood Borough Council. Contact details can be found at www.energynetworks.org.uk.
National Grid Asset Guidance
National Grid seeks to encourage high quality and well-planned development in the vicinity of its high voltage overhead lines. Land beneath and adjacent to the overhead line route should be used to make a positive contribution to the development of the site and can for example be used for nature conservation, open space, landscaping areas or used as a parking court. National Grid, in association with David Lock Associates has produced 'A Sense of Place' guidelines, which provide detail on how to develop near overhead lines and offers practical solutions which can assist in avoiding the unnecessary sterilisation of land in the vicinity of high voltage overhead lines.
Potential developers of these sites should be aware that it is National Grid policy to retain our existing overhead lines in-situ. The relocation of existing high voltage overhead lines will only be considered for projects of national importance which has been identified as such by central government. National Grid requests that any High-Pressure Gas Pipelines are taken into account when site options are developed in more detail. These pipelines form an essential part of the national gas transmission system and National Grid's approach is always to seek to leave our existing transmission pipelines in situ. Please refer to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in the first instance. National Grid have land rights for each asset which prevents the erection of permanent/ temporary buildings, or structures, changes to existing ground levels, storage of materials etc. Additionally, written permission will be required before any works commence within the National Grid easement strip, and a deed of consent is required for any crossing of the easement. In the first instance please consider checking with the Land Registry for the development area.
If you require any further information in relation to the above and/or if you would like to check if National Grid's transmission networks may be affected by your works, please contact National Grid's Plant Protection team via lantprotection@nationalgrid.com or visit the website: https://www.linesearchbeforeudig.co.uk/
Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us. In addition, the following publications are available from the National Grid website or by contacting us at the address overleaf: * A sense of place - design guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines: A sense of place design guidelines for development near high voltage overhead lines: tps://www.nationalgrid.com/sites/default/files/documents/Sense%20of%20Place%20-%20National%20Grid%20Guidance.pdf
* Guidelines when working near NGG assets: https://www.nationalgridgas.com/land-and-assets/workingnear-our-assets
* Guidelines when working near NGETT assets: https://www.nationalgridet.com/network-andassets/working-near-our-assets Appendices - National Grid Assets
Please find attached in: * Appendix 1 provides a map of the National Grid network across the UK.
* Appendix 2 provides maps of the sites referenced above in relation to the affected National Grid Transmission assets outlined above. Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure. We would be grateful if you could add our details shown below to your consultation database:
Lucy Bartley - Consultant Town Planner
Spencer Jefferies - Development Liaison Officer, National Grid

1.0 Introduction
1. These representations have been prepared by Navigus Planning on behalf of West Horndon Parish Council ('the Parish Council') in respect of the Brentwood Borough Council (BBC) Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation ('the Reg 19 Plan').
2. The principal matter that these representations address is the allocation of Dunton Hills Garden Village (Policy RO1) and specifically the soundness of that allocation, as required by paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In particular, the Parish Council is of the opinion that the Reg 19 Plan has not been justified because it hasn't been based on appropriate and proportionate evidence and is not consistent with national policy.
3. It is important to make clear that the Parish Council supports the allocation of the land at West Horndon Industrial Estate (Policy RO2) for residential, care home and appropriate employment uses.
2.0 Previous representations
4. The Parish Council's representations dated 22nd March 2016 to the Draft Local Plan raised a number of issues. It is the opinion of the Parish Council that the points made have not been addressed; indeed very little has changed in the Reg 19 Plan in light of representations made by any parties. The Parish Council wishes therefore to make clear that the representations it made on the Draft Local Plan are still outstanding and still represent matters that require addressing for the Reg 19 Plan to be considered to be sound.
3.0 Transport strategy
5. The spatial strategy in the Reg 19 Plan focuses on three main driving forces, one of which is 'Transit-oriented Growth'. Paragraph 3.11 notes that one of its 'connectivity axes' is the A127 and the London, Tilbury and Southend Railway to London Fenchurch Street Station. It states that:
"Focusing growth along these axes will ensure that future development is sustainable, maximising the benefits of transport infrastructure. While some investment to improve the transport network will be inevitable, this growth strategy ensures economies of scale are reached, with the critical mass of development making it more viable for such investment to occur."
6. Whilst it is questionable as to whether growth along a road corridor can ever constitute sustainable development given the detrimental effects of increased car use on climate change and air pollution, the stated principle is supported. However, the Parish Council has concerns that the spatial strategy which is then presented fails to adequately justify or demonstrate what improvements are going to be needed to the transport network and whether the costs - which have not been properly scoped out - can be addressed by investment which can reasonably be expected to come from development and other sources. In this regard, it is important to be clear that Brentwood borough is not the only local authority area along the A127 Corridor. Basildon, Thurrock, Castle Point, Rochford and Southend-on-Sea are also planning for growth and will also be relying on the A127 Corridor to support increased movement by all modes. Yet the Reg 19 Plan fails to properly consider this.
3.1 Road infrastructure
7. In answering the question 'What key issues should be considered in developing the transport evidence base to support the Local Plan?', national Planning Practice Guidance states that one such key issue is the need to, "consider the cumulative impacts of existing and proposed development on transport networks" (Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 54-003-20141010).
8. The Transport Assessment which accompanies the Reg 19 Plan is the key piece of transport evidence used to demonstrate that the spatial strategy and growth proposed in the Plan can be supported by the strategic and local highway network. It includes a Reference Case Model which, as is stated in the Executive Summary, "...includes trips developments within neighbouring authorities, as well as additional background trips associated with population growth predictions for future years." Therefore, as far as the A127 Corridor is concerned, the Reference Case only considers the wider impact of growth in Basildon and Thurrock districts but excludes growth in Castle Point, Rochford or Southend-on-Sea. In considering what baseline information should inform a transport assessment, national Planning Practice Guidance states:
"The transport assessment should be produced at a Local Plan level in partnership with all relevant transport and planning authorities, transport providers and key stakeholders, for example, the Local Economic Partnership. It may be appropriate for the transport assessment to cover an area wider than the Local Plan at least initially given the size of some travel to work areas (this would be similar to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment). This process should help to identify any potential measures that may be required to mitigate negative impacts." (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 54-005-20141010)
9. In this regard, the Brentwood Transport Assessment fails to fully take into account the impacts of traffic coming from the eastern parts of the Corridor. The impact of this omission is demonstrated by other work which has assessed the wider impacts. Indeed, the Transport Assessment states that it takes account of the A127 Economic Plan , published in 2014. It states that paragraph 1.2.5 that:
"Where information is available, this has been used to inform the modelling. The final outcomes from the study are not yet known and continued joint working with ECC [Essex County Council] and other neighbouring authorities will be important, so any outcomes from this study can feed through to the corridor study and consideration given to demonstrate this within a Statement of Common Ground with the highway authorities and neighbouring authorities."
Map 1: Summary of transport impacts of 2014 Economic Plan modelling along A127 Corridor
[Please find the map in attached document]
10. Whilst the Brentwood Transport Assessment focuses on specific junctions and the requirements of growth in the Local Plan and neighbouring districts, the 2014 Economic Plan assesses flows along sections of the A127 from Southend to the M25. In this regard it is more explicitly considering the number of vehicles on the A127 during peak periods and how this affects the flow of traffic. Figure 1 in the Economic Plan (shown in Map 1 above) notes that, almost along its entirety, the A127 is close to or above capacity. Figure 2 (also shown in Map 1) notes that, with the planned growth which informed the modelling, it would be above capacity for almost its entire length. Moreover, the entire stretch from Rayleigh through to the M25 would be between 28% and 50% above capacity. It is clear that, as assessed in the 2014 Economic Plan, significant mitigation would be required along the A127 to address the levels of growth fed into the modelling.
11. Since this time, the levels of growth being planned for, or required to be planned for, in the A127 Corridor authorities, has increased substantially from those used to inform the 2014 Economic Plan. Table 1 shows that, based on emerging local plans or objectively assessed need figures, the growth levels being planned for have increased by 88% compared with the 2014 position:
Table 1: Comparison of growth used to inform 2014 transport modelling and current levels of growth being planned for
[Please find table 1 in attached document]
12. If the 2014 Forecast Congestion Reference showed that the A127 would be significantly above capacity, then the near doubling of growth is likely to result in a significant worsening of this position. The outputs of the Brentwood Transport Assessment, whilst acknowledging the importance of the A127 Economic Plan work which it notes is still ongoing, fail to take into account this evidence.
13. It should be noted that this analysis does not take into account the impacts of either the Lower Thames Crossing or proposed employment growth over the plan period.
14. It is the view of the Parish Council that the Transport Assessment is not sufficiently robust to take into account the cumulative impacts of planned growth on the A127, as required by National Planning Practice Guidance.
15. When looking in isolation at the results of the Transport Assessment in respect of the potential solution to mitigate congestion at the A127/A128 Brentwood Road/A128 Tilbury Road junction serving Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and East Horndon Hall allocation, it is noted that paragraph 9.4.8 summarises the results as follows:
"During the PM peak, however, the arm shows a degree of saturation of 95%, although this is over capacity, the operation of this junction has improved significantly."
16. Whilst it is not disputed that the identified mitigation will improve the position, the fact is that the junction will still be over-capacity. When it is borne in mind that the wider impacts of growth along the A127 Corridor have not been taken into account, then the degree to which it will be over-capacity is certain to increase. A strategy predicated on growth which, despite a focus on sustainable transport, results in road junctions being over capacity, is not sustainable.
17. The Transport Assessment identifies a total of 8 junctions that require significant mitigation across the borough. The Brentwood Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) schedule gives a 'headline estimate' of £4m to address local highway network improvements. The Parish Council considers it extremely unlikely that it will cost an average of just £0.5m per junction to put in place the necessary mitigation measures at these junctions. Moreover, as is noted in paragraph 10.5.3 of the Transport Assessment, "Requirements for each of the proposals was identified and any physical constraints identified, no investigation to land ownership or costs involving the moving of Statutory Undertakers and Utility Apparatus was undertaken."
18. As Map 1 showed, the forecast delays on the A127 are significant and our analysis shows that these have been informed by growth figures well below those that are being planned for. It is not only mitigation at junctions which is required but solutions to expand capacity on the A127 itself. The degree to which individual junction improvements will mitigate the impact of the overall volume of traffic on the A127 at peak period is likely to be limited. At page 11 of the A127 Corridor for Growth Study states that, "The number of side-roads and accesses along the A127 tend to restrict any benefit from traditional capacity improvement measures, such as additional lanes." Therefore it is not considered likely that such solutions will be possible.
19. The need to address the significant strategic impacts of growth along the A127 has been recognised through the establishment of an A127 Economic Growth Corridor Task Force in November 2018. As is noted in its launch presentation, options for consideration include re-trunking of the road and the Group has had "positive discussions with Highways England and the Department for Transport" on this. If successful, this would open up opportunities for funding through the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS). This highlights a key point, namely that the current A127 does not qualify for RIS funding. Once the true cost of mitigation of the junctions along the A127 to address Local Plan growth has fully taken into account the cost of land acquisition and utilities, the bill is likely to be much higher than the 'headline' £4m and will require funding from other sources. In this regard, the decision over whether the A127 is re-trunked becomes critical to the delivery of the growth strategy, not only for the Brentwood Reg 19 Plan but for the emerging local plans of the other authorities along the route. At this stage, no progress has been made in this regard therefore this cannot be part of the evidence base which justifies the deliverability of the proposals in the Reg 19 Plan along the A127 Corridor.
20. Paragraph 108 of the NPPF states that:
"In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans...it should be ensured that... any significant impacts from the development on...highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree."
21. The Transport Assessment only makes a single mention of highway safety, at paragraph 1.2.5, referring to the A127 Corridor for Growth Study by stating that:
"... there are individual pieces of work which are currently at various stages of planning and development, which are focussed on interchange capacity and/or safety improvements. Where information is available, this has been used to inform the modelling."
22. Page 11 of the A127 Study states that:
"The collisions caused by being an over-capacity road are not simple to address...The junctions identified as being problematic are the A128 Halfway House, B148 Dunton, A132 Nevendon and the A176 Upper Mayne junctions".
23. These are the junctions that are critical to the delivery of the DHGV and East Horndon Hall allocation (which, as an employment allocation, will create significant levels of HGV traffic accessing the junction) yet the evidence base to consider not only capacity but highway safety has not been adequately completed or aligned.
3.2 Sustainable transport movement
24. The transit-oriented growth strategy that underpins the Reg 19 Plan relies heavily on rail, and to a lesser extent, bus cycling and walking infrastructure, to reduce levels of car use by effecting modal shift for as many journeys as possible. In many respects, the success of the strategy is predicated on this modal shift yet nowhere in the evidence base does it suggest what the required increases in rail and bus patronage, cycling and walking are.
25. In assessing sustainable modes of travel, the Transport Assessment makes reference to Department for Transport (DfT) evidence on travel plans variously from 2005, 2007 and 2010, much of which based its outputs on data gathered between 2004 and 2008. These are extremely dated evidence sources framed within a totally different historical policy context, so to rely on them to support a plan being consulted on in 2019 lacks credibility. Even if one does take the lessons learned from this historical evidence, it is clear that the ability to affect significant modal shift in Brentwood borough is expected by the Transport Assessment to be very limited. Paragraph 7.3.9 of the Transport Assessment states that, "This seems a proportionate and pragmatic approach and the reduction in trips is at a level which should be achievable in the future in the context of the modelling". It then presents in Tables 7.5 and 7.6 the assumed numbers of car driver trips once 'sustainable measures' have been applied. In summary:
* In the morning peak, there would be a reduction of 239 car driver trips out of a total of 22,499 trips (1.06%)
* In the evening peak there would be a reduction of 194 car driver trips out of a total of 22,484 trips (0.86%)
26. This is not considered to represent a sustainable movement strategy therefore the Reg 19 Plan cannot be considered to be justified because it does not represent a reasonable strategy.
27. We now consider each of the sustainable transport modes in turn, as far as they relate to growth at DHGV and West Horndon.
3.3 Rail infrastructure
28. The transit-oriented growth strategy that underpins the Reg 19 Plan relies heavily on the rail network to enable the increased resident and worker population to travel by train. It recognises that a significant proportion of people commute out to London on the rail network every day (Figure 3.7 in the IDP notes that the proportion of residents in Brentwood commuting by rail is high).
29. A key part of the strategy focuses on West Horndon station, with the strategy expecting the new residents in West Horndon and DHGV to use this station when travelling by train. Figure 3.8 in the IDP summarises the number of users of the station over the period 2010 to 2015. It then states at paragraph 3.38 that, "West Horndon Station's growth levels are very modest." This may be true as far as entries and exits to and from the station when compared with other stations on the Anglian mainline (Shenfield, Ingatestone, Brentwood and Chelmsford) but this makes no acknowledgement of how busy the train are. As is shown by the photo in Figure 1, the C2C trains serving West Horndon during the morning peak at present are heavily congested:
Figure 1: Photo of typical train congestion on London-bound trains from West Horndon station in the morning peak, March 2019
[Please find the photo in attached document]
30. Local commuters report that trains arriving between 06.54 and 09.02 always have standing room only. In total this includes 9 trains which travel to London Fenchurch Street Station each morning. It is clear that a growth strategy predicated on increased train usage requires an increase in the capacity of the trains on the London, Tilbury and Southend line to London Fenchurch Street Station. This is endorsed by the Transport Assessment which, when considering the West Horndon public transport interchange at the station, states at paragraph 7.2.26 that:
"An increased capacity on the existing train service will be central to the new cycling, walking and bus movements of the new residents and employees accessing the four sites."
31. Despite this, there are no identified plans for investment in increased passenger rail capacity on this line and no suggestion in the Reg 19 Plan or the evidence base as to the scale of improvements required. Whilst the expansion of the interchange at West Horndon station is welcomed, this of itself will not increase capacity on the rail network. The national Planning Practice Guidance addresses what baseline information should inform a transport assessment of a Local Plan. It notes that this should include an assessment of, "accessibility of transport nodes such as rail/bus stations to facilitate integrated solutions" (Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 54-005-20141010). This includes their accessibility by rail, which is particularly important given the reliance on linked trips by rail passengers seeking to access DHGV (by bus, cycling or on foot). Yet the evidence supporting the Reg 19 Plan does not provide this.
3.4 Cycling and walking infrastructure
32. The national Planning Practice Guidance requires a transport assessment to consider whether it should establish 'future predicted trips' in respect of walking and cycling facilities and movements. Given the Reg 19 Plan strategy is for a key non-vehicular movement corridor to be between DHGV and West Horndon, this must be part of the Transport Assessment as it is important to understand the modal share that such trips are expected to account for. Yet none of the evidence provides any suggestion as to what proportion of journeys between these two locations is expected to be by non-vehicular modes. This is crucial to the success of the strategy because West Horndon is a key transport interchange and DHGV is the planned location for all new education provision to serve the growth in pupils from West Horndon.
33. Equally, Figure 3.5 in the IDP notes the scale of the challenge - between 2001 and 2011 cycling to work by Brentwood residents fell and was the second lowest in Essex. It is unclear what the strategy is to increase modal share by bicycle. Not only does the Reg 19 Plan not identify specific routes but it does not make clear how cyclists would navigate across key junctions safely. This is critical because it is well established that one of the main reasons why levels of cycling in England remain low is because of safety concerns. An off-road route will encourage people but if that route doesn't provide safe passage across heavily-trafficked junctions, then people will not cycle.
34. The Reg 19 Plan provides no suggestion that such a route has been properly considered or that it has been secured. The costs identified in the IDP schedule therefore cannot be verified because the evidence does not demonstrate how they have been derived. However, with dedicated cycle routes in the order of 3km required to link West Horndon station into and through DHGV, an allowance of £1.8m for walkways and cycleways appears to be a gross under-estimate if a meaningful and required increase in cycling and walking is to be achieved.
35. The lack of certainty is reinforced by the IDP schedule referring into to 'feasibility studies' in respect of a green bridge (over the A127) and pedestrian underpass (under the A128). Whilst a 'headline estimate' cost is provided, it is not clear how the strategy would be delivered if the feasibility studies determined that one or both of these schemes could not be delivered.
36. As noted above, it is vital to the sustainability of the Reg 19 Plan strategy that as many short journeys as possible between West Horndon and DHGV are undertaken by non-vehicular modes. Given that all the proposed primary school provision to serve the growth at West Horndon will be provided at DHGV, then maximising the potential for children to walk and cycle to school is vital. In this regard, the need for safe and direct routes increases in importance. Very few primary school-aged children are going to walk or cycle on routes which are not separated from vehicular traffic and equally, very few children are going to walk more than one kilometre to school, irrespective of the quality of the route. It is a significant concern to the Parish Council that without a clear and credible plan for developing walking and cycling linkages between West Horndon and DHGV, then the reality is that many parents will choose to take primary school-aged children to school by car. This will exacerbate the congestion at school drop-off and pick-up time in West Horndon, with some parents travelling by car to West Horndon Primary School and others leaving West Horndon to access schools in DHGV.
4.0 Flooding
37. The Parish Council, in its representations on the Draft Local Plan in March 2016, addressed concerns relating to flood risk and the impact of flooding on West Horndon. We do not seek to reiterate those points here.
38. The Brentwood Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2018 identifies that large sections of the area around West Horndon, including the land to the east which connects it to the DHGV site, are considered to be high risk flood areas. This is demonstrated on the ground in West Horndon, with areas regularly lying under water and, at Christmas in both 2012 and 2013, subject to major flood events (see photos below).
[please find the photos in attached document]
39. In light of this and the fact that these events are occurring with increasing regularity (and scientific evidence making clear that a major cause of this is climate change), it is considered vital that a precautionary approach is taken to considering the impact of flooding, not least because of the scale of growth proposed at DHGV as well as the significant amount of employment development proposed at East Horndon Hall (Policy E13).
40. The likely implications of climate change on flooding are only starting to be realised. In fact, on 28th February 2019, the Environment Agency published a new report which looked at the likely impacts over the long term . This is based on more recent mapping data (2018) than is included in the flood risk mapping used to inform the evidence base for the Reg 19 Plan. It identifies that there are more places where new investment is not going to be cost effective and therefore, as a purely economic issue, more money will be needed to provide better flood mitigation infrastructure in more places. So whilst evidence from the local community may be anecdotal, it is based on observation over a long period of time and aligns with the evidence in the Environment Agency report that the threats are more widespread than the current evidence suggests.
41. One such example where this is considered to be the case is the proposed East Horndon Hall allocation. This field is observed to frequently be flooded and therefore there are significant concerns that the flood mitigation required for this site alone will be significant. The cumulative impacts of this site and the neighbouring DHGV site are therefore considered likely to be significant and the evidence used to inform the Reg 19 Plan has not fully and properly considered this.
42. The Reg 19 Plan is not accompanied by a Level 2 SFRA. National Planning Practice Guidance states that:
"Where a Level 1 Assessment shows that land outside flood risk areas cannot appropriately accommodate all the necessary development, it may be necessary to increase the scope of the Assessment to a Level 2 to provide the information necessary for application of the Exception Test where appropriate." (Paragraph: 012 Reference ID: 7-012-20140306).
43. One of the recommendations of the Level 1 SFRA was:
"Should the Council wish to allocate sites with an identified flood risk, then the policy should either be to avoid the areas of flood risk or to assess the risk in more detail through either Level 2 SFRA work or on a site specific level. This more detailed review should include identification of Flood Zone 3b and it should assess flood hazard and depth for return periods up to and including the 1 in 1000 annual probability plus climate change event." (paragraph 9.2.1)
44. The nature of the areas that are within flood zone 3 (see Map 2) suggests that it could be difficult to ensure that the DHGV site delivers the necessary levels of development. Indeed, the SA notes Appendix K of the Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP):
"Whilst the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation document (January 2015) suggested that the area in question [around the area of high flood risk] would be left as open space, there is currently less certainty regarding precisely where built development... would occur. Also, it is noted that a large portion of the area under consideration... is identified by the SWMP as having limited potential to deliver 'infiltration' measures as part of sustainable drainage strategy."
Map 2: Flood zones in DHGV site
[Please find Map 2 in attached document]
45. Moreover, whilst the requirement of Policy RO1.D.k on DHGV for "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" is welcomed, it is of concern that such measures have not been scoped out in more depth to ascertain whether they do not undermine the viability of the overall development.
46. It is considered that without a Level 2 SFRA of the DHGV site, the Reg 19 Plan is not sound because it has not been justified and is not consistent with national policy.
47. The SA, in assessing the approach to flooding, summarises at paragraph 9.8.8:
"The Draft Plan (2016) appraisal concluded no significant effects on the basis that the spatial strategy generally avoided areas of flood risk, although flood risk is a constraint to growth at DHGV. Work has been ongoing to understand surface-water flood risk, and necessary Sustainable Drainage Systems (e.g. this was a reason for a decision being taken, following the Preferred Allocations consultation, to reduce the number of homes delivered at the Blackmore allocations), and so significant negative effects are not predicted in relation to the Proposed Submission Plan; however, there remains some uncertainty ahead of a detailed DHGV masterplan."
48. The SA then goes on to consider that, in respect of flooding, all sites are assessed as having an equal impact.
49. This approach is contrary to the advice in national Planning Practice Guidance, shown in Figure 2. The SA has failed to properly consider alternative sites at a lower risk of flooding and the evidence supporting the Reg 19 Plan has failed to properly demonstrate that the level of growth proposed for DHGV can be accommodated on the site in areas with a low probability of flooding.
Figure 2: Taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a Local Plan
[Please see Figure 2 in the attached document]
50. It is considered that the Reg 19 Plan is not sound because national planning guidance in respect of the approach to taking flood risk into account in the preparation of a local plan.
5.0 Summary of objections - consistent with national policy and justified
51. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of the Dunton Hills Garden Village because it does not adequately demonstrate that it is consistent with national policy. As stated in the NPPF, such consistency is required to enable the delivery of sustainable development in line with the policies in the Framework. In order to do this, full and careful consideration must be given to, amongst other things, promoting sustainable transport and meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding - both objectives of the NPPF.
52. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of DHGV and its transport policies because it is not justified. It is not based on proportionate evidence to inform what the Plan acknowledges is a key principle that is used to justify the overarching strategy, namely the ability to deliver infrastructure that enables more sustainable movement. The reason that it is not based on proportionate evidence is because the evidence base fails to properly assess the impacts of growth on the A127 and to articulate - and cost - the provision of a sustainable movement strategy which has sufficient capacity to accommodate the increased demand. In this regard, the lack of evidence as to how the increased passenger numbers on the South Essex railway line through West Horndon station are of particular concern to the Parish Council.
53. The Reg 19 Plan is not sound in respect of DHGV and its policies in relation to flooding for two reasons. First, it has not undertaken a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, despite there being clear concerns raised in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) about the ability to accommodate the levels of growth proposed on the site whilst adequately mitigating the flood impacts. Second, the SA has failed, in light of this, to consider reasonable alternatives. Both of these matters mean that the preparation of the Reg 19 Plan is not consistent with national policy.

POLICY BE18: GREEN AND BLUE INFRASTRUCTURE
Policy is in accordance with national planning guidance and the Habitats Regulations through seeking to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment.
POLICY NE01: PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Policy is in accordance with national planning guidance and the Habitats Regulations through seeking to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment.
POLICY NE02: RECREATIONAL DISTURBANCE AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION
STRATEGY (RAMS)
Policy ensures any residential development that is likely to affect the integrity of those European Sites identified under the Essex RAMS, or Epping Forest SAC will
be required to either contribute towards mitigation measures identified in the RAMS or, in exceptional circumstances, identify and implement bespoke mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the Habitat Regulations.

POLICY R01 (I): DUNTON HILLS GARDEN VILLAGE STRATEGIC ALLOCATION
Policy incorporates measures to avoid significant adverse impacts on designated sites including those identified under Essex RAMS, arising from this new development (subject to a well-designed masterplan being produced which includes all relevant and necessary measures).

RO2 - Point 3.3 Drainage - West Horndon currently suffers from surface water flooding. A further 580 homes, together with all the extra infrastructure required to accommodate this volume of people, will exacerbate this problem. The Tillingham Hall development in the 1990s was abandoned, in part, due to this problem.
Point 9.91 Main vehicular access via Station Road. Station Road is already unable to cope with the current volume of traffic. It is a country lane with a sharp double bend where the road crosses the railway line. This part of the road is a major hazard with frequent accidents. 580 new properties will result in a minimum of 580 cars exiting onto what is already a major danger spot.
Station Road is also used as a "rat run" when the M25, A127 and A13 are closed, running slowly, or congested.
9.93 & 9.94 The Council are living in Never Never Land if they think people will use alternative forms of transport to the car .... people will use cars! West Horndon station is a 2 platform station which barely copes (in the rush hour) with the sudden impact of hundreds of people descending on such a tiny space. There is very little parking space and nowhere to allocate further spaces.
(Also see below comment regarding Dunton Garden Suburb inhabitants using West Horndon Station)
RO1 Point 8.2 Potential Dedicated Bus Routes My previous comment applies ... West Horndon station is a 2 platform station which barely copes (in the rush hour) with the sudden impact of hundreds of people descending on such a tiny space.
8.4 Improvements at West Horndon Station etc My previous comments apply regarding parking, nowhere for extra infrastructure to accommodate bus interchange or bicycle storage.
I believe the plan to be unsound and not thought out thoroughly with common sense in mind. It is full of "ideas" that have not been sensibly thought through. It's everyones' idea of what, in a perfect world, it could be like.
There is no space at West Horndon station to accommodate more passengers in the rush hour, nowhere to park, provide cycle storage or allow interchange for buses. Station Road will become totally congested with traffic joining from the proposed site for the new homes. The addition of buses coming in from Dunton Garden Suburb would exacerbate the problem further.
This part of the plan is unrealistic and unworkable.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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.

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.

Favour the more positive use of "at least" instead of "around 2,700 homes" in the plan period in light of the pressing housing needs in the area.

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.

As suggested above.

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.

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.

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

Policy R01 (1) should be amended to reduce the overall amount of housing to be delivered at DHGV in the plan period. This needs to be more realistic with commencements of completions no earlier than 2025/2026, with a total delivery of 1950 in this period.
The Housing Trajectory at Appendix 1 also therefore requires modification for DHGV to remove the completion of dwellings in the period 2022/23 - 2025/26 which are considered to be unrealistic given the time necessary to resolve planning, land control and funding matters fully. The overall quantum should be reduced accordingly rather than further backloaded in the DHGV trajectory.
Other reasonable alternative sites (as identified in the Sustainability Appraisal), including LLLP's land interest at Honeypot Lane, Brentwood should be included within the Local Plan allocations to assist in meeting the housing requirements and acute shortage in the early part of the Plan period given the changes needed in total delivery and phasing trajectory for DHGV. Additional technical evidence, testing and evaluation of the DHGV proposals in terms of transport, community and green infrastructure requirements costs and funding, is required to support the Local Plan's proposed allocation of the site and to ensure that this is proposed on a comprehensive and realistic basis. Policy R01 (I) should be modified accordingly.

Policy R01 (I): Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation and Appendix
1: Local Plan Housing Trajectory
March 2019
Introduction
1. Chilmark Consulting Ltd. (CCL) are instructed by and write for and on behalf of
LaSalle Land Limited Partnership (LLLP) with respect to the Brentwood Borough
Local Plan: Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with Policy R01 (I) Dunton Hills Garden Village
Strategic Allocation and also Appendix 1 Local Development Plan Housing
Trajectory.
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
Housing Delivery and Trajectory
4. Point B of Policy R01 (I) establishes that the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV)
will provide 2,700 new homes in the plan period (some 35% of the total planned
housing provision) and an indicative overall capacity of some 4,000 homes in total
(the remainder beyond the current plan period).
5. Point D(a) of the same policy then states that delivery will be "at least" 2,700
dwellings in the plan period.
6. Appendix 1 of the Plan sets out the Local Plan housing trajectory which identifies a
total of 2,700 dwellings to be developed at DHGV in the plan period. The Housing
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
2
Trajectory proposes that 100 dwellings will be completed in 2022/23 with
development delivery rates ramping up significantly to 150, 250 and then 300
dwellings per annum (dpa) during the period from 2023/24 - 2032/33.
7. Paragraph 9.23 (iii) in establishing development principles, sets out that the
development of DHGV should be flexible to accommodate the likely progression
over a 20 year build-out period.
8. DHGV is a Green Belt, greenfield location. Any development therefore requires an
adopted Development Plan that includes release of the whole site area from Green
Belt as well as all of the necessary land control, funding and planning permissions
(outline and then reserved matters) together with requisite secured planning
obligations and contributions in order to proceed.
9. The development proposed and the community that would be created depends
entirely on new social, community and green infrastructure to be created.
Substantial new and enhanced highways and public transport infrastructure is
required given the chosen location for the Garden Village. There is evidently a
major programme of new infrastructure development necessary to ensure that the
resulting new settlement is in any way sustainable.
10. It is clear to LLLP that the planning and development of DHGV is a long-term
project and not a scheme that can be swiftly mobilised and construction completed
in the short term as the Council's assumptions concerning the delivery trajectory
propose.
11. In this context, LLLP raise significant concerns over the quantum of housing that is
intended to be provided within the plan period and the phasing of such delivery.
The total quantum of residential development proposed does not appear to be
realistic in the plan period with very substantial development rates identified each
year up to 2033.
12. The Housing Trajectory in Appendix 1 signals that there will be 100 residential
completions in 2022/23. To achieve this, the Local Plan will need to be adopted in
order to release the site from Green Belt, the DHGV masterplanning and
infrastructure testing and validation work completed and all necessary outline and
reserved matters permissions secured. Pre-commencement conditions will also
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
3
need to have been discharged, CIL payments made and relevant planning
obligations completed and implemented, including the negotiation and signing of a
S.106 Agreement.
13. Put simply, LLLP do not believe that there is a realistic prospect of any residential
dwellings being completed by 2022/23 and indeed would not anticipate that DHGV
will be sufficiently advanced to deliver housing in the following years until at least
2025/26.
14. There is therefore no likely or realistic contribution arising from new dwellings at
DHGV towards meeting the Borough's persistent and acute housing needs or in
remedying the lack of a five year housing land supply.
15. LLLP has, in previous representations on the emerging Local Plan, raised the
importance of ensuring that the Local Plan offers a choice and mix of housing sites
to enable delivery in the immediate and shorter term and reduce the risk of nonimplementation
of individual residential schemes while plans and work continues
to secure necessary consents for DHGV.
16. The removal of sites, such as LLLP's land interest at Honeypot Lane, Brentwood,
in favour of a greater quantum of housing growth at DHGV during the plan period
does not help achieve the choice and mix of housing sites necessary. In fact it
positively discriminates against such an outcome.
17. LLLP therefore object to the total proposed quantum and the identified phasing of
new residential development at DHGV as set out in Policy R01 (I) and at Appendix
1.
Infrastructure Dependency and Viability
18. DHGV is predicated on a substantial level of new transport, community, social and
green infrastructure. This is largely necessary because of the site's greenfield
location which is well away from existing settlements and facilities in Brentwood
Borough or in Basildon or Thurrock (with which the proposed site borders).
19. The full costs and infrastructure requirements are not specified in detail in the
Local Plan, but policy R01 (I) and R0 (II) set out a series of proposed development
and design aspirations, objectives and needs. The evidential basis confirming the
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
4
scale, extent and need for many of these requirements is not convincing (see
LLLP's separate representation concerning R01 (II)).
20. Furthermore, LLLP are concerned about the deliverability and viability of DHGV
with the potential infrastructure necessary to make the scheme sustainable.
21. The Local Plan Viability Assessment (October 2018) identifies an infrastructure
contribution cost of some £126m based on modelling of 3,500 dwellings rather
than the 2,700 dwellings proposed in the current Plan, but this assumes no
contribution arising/required from the Borough's Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)
and the viability work was clearly undertaken prior to the Pre-Submission Plan's
specific policy requirements for DHGV. Indeed, the Viability Assessment notes
that further work is likely to be needed as the site specific costs and requirements
for DHGV are derived.
22. As LLLP's separate representation to policy R01 (II) concludes there needs to be
an updated, comprehensive viability analysis of the DHGV proposals including all
costs, site specific infrastructure requirements, CIL, S.106 obligations and
modelling of the effects of all of the proposed design and land use requirements
set out in the Local Plan, including those stated in Policy R01 (I) and R01 (II).
Sustainability
23. The location chosen to site the new settlement comprises greenfield, Green Belt
land that is unconnected to the existing pattern of settlements. It is, at its northern
boundary, adjacent to the A127 strategic road and to the south, adjacent to the
main Basildon rail line, but is not easily connected to either. It is some 1.6+ km
distant from West Horndon railway station and also separated from the centre of
Laindon in the west of Basildon Borough by existing countryside and agricultural
land including Dunton Hall and various farm buildings.
24. LLLP noted that there are no proposals in the emerging Basildon Borough Local
Plan: Revised Publication (October 2018) that includes any development or
proposed vehicular or public transport connection between the eastern edge of
DHGV and the Southfields and Laindon area in the west of Basildon Borough.
The DHGV site's location is therefore clearly unrelated to the existing and
proposed settlement pattern.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
5
25. The Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal (SA) has had to make a number of 'heroic'
assumptions in order to attempt to demonstrate that the DHGV proposals
represent the most appropriate reasonable development alternative.
26. It is suggested in the SA that the opportunity to achieve higher levels of
sustainability at DHGV are greater for a new greenfield settlement than
development in/adjacent to existing settlements because of the 'clean sheet' such
a site would afford.
27. In taking this approach the SA fails to properly consider that the existing settlement
hierarchy represents a sustainable pattern of land uses and activities with
appropriate infrastructure available now and with significant enhancements
capable of being made or indeed already committed during the lifetime of the Local
Plan (for example the opening of the new Queen Elizabeth Line connecting
Brentwood and Shenfield more closely with London and other centres).
28. LLLP concludes that DHGV only performs at a similar level to alternative
development locations in Brentwood, Shenfield or Ingatestone because of a heavy
reliance and emphasis in the SA appraisal on possible positive effects from
implementing aspirational design, environmental and transport ideas/measures
that are not yet adopted plan policies or from uncosted and untested new
infrastructure that seeks low carbon, high design quality, sustainable transport and
other measures.
29. There is no clear reason however why other development locations and sites in
and adjacent to Brentwood, Shenfield or Ingatestone cannot be as sustainable, or
indeed more so, than construction of a new settlement at a greenfield location in
the countryside where all infrastructure will have to be provided from scratch.
30. The SA is flawed in its analysis of the future sustainability performance of DHGV in
comparison with reasonable alternatives (section 9 of the Sustainability Appraisal),
including greater growth at Brentwood and other existing settlements. The SA
skews its assessment based on aspirational design ideas and measures for DHGV
that are not properly or fully evidenced and appears predicated towards
demonstrating that DHGV is a better option than a more balanced distribution of
growth at Brentwood and other settlements.
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
6
Conclusions
31. LLLP object to Policy R01 (I) and to the Housing Trajectory set out in Appendix 1
of the Plan. The policy and the Appendix are not sound as they are not:
* Justified - the total quantum of housing propose for DHGV and the delivery
trajectory proposed are not realistic or justified by sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that such housing will be delivered in the plan period.
The Plan's SA does not adequately justify the allocation and development
of DHGV and is reliant upon untested or costed new infrastructure and
upon design principles and other measures that are aspirational but not
sufficiently tested to show that they are realistic and can be viably delivered
during the plan period.
* Effective - the emphasis in Policy R01 (II) and the Appendix 1 housing
trajectory on DHGV to provide 35% of the total planned housing delivery in
the plan period represents an over-reliance on this long term development
project. The Plan is at serious risk in failing to deliver sufficient housing
because of the reliance on the new settlement proposal. This is not an
effective policy or spatial strategy as it fails to ensure that there is a
sufficient choice and mix of housing land sites to meet acute short term
housing needs or redress the persistent shortfall in housing delivery.
The proposals for DHGV are not sufficiently developed to offer adequate
certainty that the new settlement is sustainable, deliverable or viable.
Proposals in Policy R01 (I) and R01 (II) are in many cases aspirational
ideas or measures and require a substantial level of additional evidential
work and testing to prove that they are deliverable in the context of NPPF
paragraph 16.
Modifications Required
32. Policy R01 (I) should be modified to reduce the overall quantum of housing to be
delivered at DHGV in the plan period. The overall reduction in quantum need to
reflect a more realistic development trajectory with commencement of completions
not earlier than 2025/26. A total delivery figure of some 1,950 dwellings for DHGV
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
7
in the later part of the plan period is a more realistic target (removing the 750
dwellings proposed to be completed in the period 2022/23 - 2025/26 as set out in
Appendix 1).
33. The Housing Trajectory at Appendix 1 also therefore requires modification for
DHGV to remove the completion of dwellings in the period 2022/23 - 2025/26
which are considered to be unrealistic given the time necessary to resolve
planning, land control and funding matters fully. The overall quantum should be
reduced accordingly rather than further backloaded in the DHGV trajectory.
34. Other reasonable alternative sites (as identified in the Sustainability Appraisal),
including LLLP's land interest at Honeypot Lane, Brentwood should be included
within the Local Plan allocations to assist in meeting the housing requirements and
acute shortage in the early part of the Plan period given the changes needed in
total delivery and phasing trajectory for DHGV.
35. Additional technical evidence, testing and evaluation of the DHGV proposals in
terms of transport, community and green infrastructure requirements costs and
funding, is required to support the Local Plan's proposed allocation of the site and
to ensure that this is proposed on a comprehensive and realistic basis. Policy R01
(I) should be modified accordingly.

The Local Plan should reflect the fact that there is more than one party involved in DHGV allocation. Mr Low would welcome greater formal commitment from CEG regarding the future of the site, in advance of the Examination in Public on the Local Plan.

On behalf of our client, Iain Low, Medow House, Arterial Road, West Horndon we wish to submit representations in respect of the Regulation 19 Brentwood Local Plan. These representations relate specifically to Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which Mr Low's landholding forms part of. The subject land in the ownership of Mr Low, site plan enclosed at Appendix A, has an area 6.5 acres. The site comprises of Mr Low's residential property and adjoining land which lies immediately adjacent to the junction of the A128 / A127. The Draft Local Plan details that the DHGV 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) together with the necessary community, employment, utility, transport and green and blue infrastructure (GBI) to support a self-sustaining, thriving and healthy garden village. Mr Low supports the allocation of the site and the removal of the land from the Green Belt as identified in the Draft Local Plan. Mr Low is keen to work with the Planning Authority and the promoter of the Garden Village in bringing forward the land for development. There is, however, no formal agreement between Mr Low and CEG in place in regard to future proposals on this site. It is surprising that the Local Plan is now at an advanced stage yet there remains uncertainty regarding the role of the landowners and promoters in respect of the Garden Village. This calls in question the deliverability of the landholding and Mr Low is keen that this matter is clarified in advance of the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State. Mr Low welcomes the opportunity to work with CEG. It is clearly the intention of the Council for Mr Low
and CEG to work in unison on this matter, however at the present time this has not been formally achieved. The Draft Local Plan states at para 9.6 that : "Where sites with more than one landownership are allocated, policies set out the need for joint working. However, this does not preclude multiple planning applications being submitted, these applications should evidence consideration of other sites and working together on proposals. This is reflected in individual site allocation policies". The Strategic Housing Allocation 'R01 Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation' incorporates the subject site owned by Mr Low. However contrary to the statement at 9.6 of the Local Plan, there is no reference to joint working between landowners in the Local Plan Policy R01. This needs to be clarified and addressed as the policy in its current form is undeliverable given there is more than one party involved in the garden village allocation. In terms of the tests of soundness this omission in the Draft Local Plan results in the policy not being justified or effective as it is currently prepared. While Mr Low welcomes the opportunity to work collaboratively with CEG, in the absence of any formal agreement at this stage it is necessary for Mr Low to protect his own interests and thus the Local Plan should reflect the fact that there is more than one party involved in DHGV allocation. Mr Low would welcome greater formal commitment from CEG regarding the future of the site, in advance of the Examination in Public on the Local Plan. Mr Low welcomes the opportunity to discuss these representations in further detail with the LPA and CEG. It is considered imperative that this matter is resolved in advance of the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Examination. Mr Low requests that he is kept informed on the next stages of the Local Plan and requests the right to participate at the oral part of the Examination - in Public.

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.

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.