1.0 Introduction
1.0.1 Thank you for consulting the Basildon & Brentwood Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) on the above emerging Local Development Plan (LP) Document.
1.1 In reviewing the context, content and recommendations of the LP Document and its current phase of progression, the following comments are with regard to the Healthcare provision on behalf of the STP
2.0 Existing Healthcare Position in the Emerging Plan Area
2.1 The LP Document covers the administrative area of Brentwood.
2.2 Currently, within the administrative area, healthcare provision incorporates a total of 9 GP Practices, 13 pharmacists, 9 dental surgeries, 10 Opticians, 2 community clinics and 2 community hospitals.
2.3 These are the healthcare services available that this Local Plan must take into account in formulating future strategies.

Removal of Allocation R20. This is a small site and should be categorised as a potential windfall site. At present, there appears to be no certainty about its availability.
We also think that, without any direct evidence of intent on behalf of the landowner, Allocation R10 should also be removed.
Policy R11 - the third sentence of related paragraph 9.137 should be re-worded, for the reasons outlined in our answer to Question 5 above, as follows:
"The site will provide for around 45 homes, anticipated to be delivered between 2023/24 and 2024/25".
Policy R13 - the third sentence of related paragraph 9.146 should be re-worded, for the reasons outlined in our answer to Question 5 above, as follows:
"The site will provide for around 31 homes, anticipated to be delivered between 2023/24 and 2024/25".

All these policies relate to relatively small redevelopment sites within the urban areas of Brentwood and Shenfield. They have all been under consideration since consultations on the Local Plan began with the original Call for Sites in 2009. If indeed these sites are suitable, available and achievable it must be surprising that at least some of them are not yet developed, or in the process of being developed.
Policy R20 concerns the Eagle and Child PH in Shenfield, with an estimated delivery of 20 new dwellings between 2021/22 and 2022/23. This site is surely best regarded as a windfall site, contributing to this stream of new housing supply as and when it is finally redeveloped. The fact that it first appeared in 2009's Call for Sites suggests that there is no urgency on behalf of the current site owners to take things forward. No application has been submitted over the past five years.
Policies R10 to R15 all relate to sites in or close to Brentwood Town Centre. Four of the six are currently used as car parks, three for the town centre and the fourth is the station car park.
Allocation R10 is the Station Car Park. Many such car parks cannot cope with demand as railway passenger numbers continue to increase. Further parking provision will surely be required during the Plan period and, as with other station car parks, multi-storey provision must be one option for increased capacity. This would affect both redevelopment options and the potential number of new houses, if any, the site could provide. Unless the Borough Council can confirm a clear commitment to redevelopment on behalf of the owners that would provide the 100 homes being asked for, then it should be removed as an allocation. We note that delivery is timed for the very end of the Plan period, with a start in around ten years' time. Given what could happen in the intervening decade, we suggest that there is a strong degree of wishful thinking in proposing this land as a residential allocation.
Policies R11, R13 and R14 all relate to existing town centre car parks controlled by the Borough Council. Together they provide nearly 600 or 45% of the publicly available car parking in Brentwood Town Centre. We note that each policy does contain the following caveat:
"development proposals should consider wider Town Centre parking needs in collaboration with other development sites where there is existing parking on site, in order to ensure that current level of Town Centre public parking spaces is maintained".
This would suggest a high degree of cooperation is needed to achieve these sites' redevelopment and maintain the existing level of town centre car parking provision. All three sites have been under consideration since 2009. Anticipated delivery is as follows:
R11 Westbury Road car park - estimated 45 dwellings between 2020/21 and 2021/22, one to two years from now
R13 Chatham Way car park - estimated 31 dwellings between 2020/21 and 2021/22, one to two years from now

R14 William Hunter Way car park - estimated delivery of 300 dwellings between 2022/23 and 2028/29, three to nine years from now.
No planning applications have been submitted on either allocation R11 and R13 in the past five years. It is most unlikely that either site will be able to deliver in one to two years' time. The lead in time for R14 is longer, but again, no proposals for redevelopment here have been submitted in the past five years.
R12 is land at Hunter House, with anticipated delivery of 48 dwellings between 2024/25 and 2026/27. We assume the number of dwellings is based on the application submitted in 2017, and regarded by the Council as finally disposed by notice dated 10 January this year. Paragraph 9.142 referring to Allocation R12 states that the site will provide "... a mix of size and type of homes including affordable in accordance with the Council's policy requirements." It would appear that the applicants' decision not to provide affordable housing in their proposed scheme was one of the main issues of contention.
The latest Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement is for 31 March 2018, published in November 2018. It demonstrates a 4.1 year supply. Around half of the supply required (820 dwellings) during the period 2018 to 2023 is to come from allocations set out in the Pre-Submission Document. We believe there is considerable doubt over R11, R13 and R20's ability to deliver during this period.
The general point we are making here is that a number of the Pre-Submission Document's brownfield allocations have been under consideration for ten years or more. Some of them, like the town centre car parks, will be complicated to redevelop. We have emphasised throughout the Local Plan process that many of these sites were unlikely to make early contributions to meeting housing supply requirements, unlike our client's site at Pilgrims Hatch that is straightforward to develop and in a single, willing ownership. The problem remains, and supports our contention that the Plan needs more easier to develop sites, with an ownership ready to start.