It is imperative that these bridleways are preserved and the link over the A127 made safer as these two sites are to be developed, thereby increasing the volume of traffic using them. These bridleways serve to link two networks severed by the M25 and A127 and allow access to those living to the south and south west of the site to access Great Warley and Thorndon beyond.

Policy E11: Brentwood Enterprise Park: we note the intention to preserve and enhance the existing public right of way adjacent to this site, and we would ask that as an existing bridleway which is an important north-south link over the A127, that this is retained, enhanced, users' safety ensured and the existing bridge over the A127 is made safer for vulnerable road users. At present, the bridge is used by HGV's as well as horses, and some form of traffic light system for users to ensure their safety would be beneficial here. This also affects Policy E10 Codham Hall Farm to the north of the A127 and again, the enhancement and safety improvements here would be very beneficial.

BBC need to demonstrate that suitable access arrangements for all modes of travel can be achieved, including appropriate mitigation/improvements.

BBC should also demonstrate what discussions have taken place with Highways England, ECC as Highway Authority, and the site promoter to ensure that access arrangements are deliverable and agreed.

2. Justified.
3. Effective.

Criterion D. b. of Policy E11 refers to potential access points via M25 Junction 29 and Warley Street (B186) and associated slip roads.

Currently it is unclear how access to the site can be achieved directly from J29 of the M25 as a consequence of the Lower Thames Crossing improvements to this junction, which includes a segregated left turn slip road from the A127 to M25 southbound. BBC therefore need to demonstrate that suitable access arrangements for all modes of travel can be achieved, including appropriate mitigation/improvements. BBC should also demonstrate what discussions have taken place with Highways England, ECC as Highway Authority, and the site promoter to ensure that access arrangements are deliverable and agreed.

Policy wording should be amended as follows (removing the caveat "where appropriate":


c. protect and enhance the adjoining Local Wildlife Site
(Hobbs Hole) "to deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity";

Policy wording is ambiguous and lacks a commitment to deliver biodiversity net gain.

It is considered that site E11 should be deleted from the plan.

Notwithstanding our principle objection on greenbelt and sustainability issues if the site is proposed for development an alternative use that capitalize on its M25 location (i.e. a service station) could be considered.

It is considered the Brentwood Draft Local Plan and supporting evidence base will require further major revision and consultation with ongoing duty to cooperate with adjoining local authorities. In particular the preparation of the draft Brentwood Local Plan should be reviewed to take account of the outcome of testing of other spatial options being considered including the evidence by the South Essex authorities as part of the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan.

Further work is required to develop the evidence base including the justification for the selection of the spatial options and dismissal of reasonable alternatives, housing capacity and supply further transport evidence and other infrastructure.

Due to the issues highlighted in this response and to the earlier documents it is considered that Brentwood Council needs to carefully consider how it proceeds with the preparation of the Local Plan and the timetable for its production. It is recommended that the Brentwood Plan with its current spatial strategy and site allocations should not be submitted for Examination.

The Brentwood Plan and supporting evidence identifies the requirement for additional employment land. However it is unclear why the employment sites at Brentwood Enterprise Park (Site ref E11), Land at East Horndon Hall (site E13) and at Dunton Hills Garden Village (Site ref RO1) are proposed in the pre-submission Local Plan. It is not always the case that employment land should be located at busy junctions or along the A127 corridor where it would add to traffic flows on a road at current capacity. The sites are not located close to existing centres and are without easy access for workers other than by car. Alternative locations and options should be investigated including the A12 corridor possibly as part of edge of settlement expansion and in mixed use schemes.

The A127/M25 Junction Enterprise Park (policy E11) is considered unsustainable and an inappropriate location for Brentwood's job growth. Notwithstanding our principle objection on greenbelt and sustainability issues if the site is proposed for development an alternative use that capitalize on its M25 location (i.e. a service station) could be considered.

However it is considered that development at this site would harm the openness of this part of the Green Belt and result in urban sprawl along the A127 by spreading the extent of built development further into the Green Belt. The form and scale of the site would also cause significant harm to the other purposes of the Green Belt and would result in major encroachment into the countryside whilst also causing harm to the purpose of preventing the merging of neighbouring towns. It is noted that the location scores overall a Moderate in terms of meeting the purposes of the Green Belt in the Brentwood draft Green Belt Review.

Any Green belt release here together with any Green Belt release east of the existing West Horndon urban boundary would also result in potential coalescence and urbanisation of the A127 corridor resulting in significant loss to the openness and strategic function of the Green Belt

It is unclear how access to this site will be achieved from junction 29 of the M25 under the latest option for the proposed Lower Thames Crossing.

Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended:
* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework
* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering
* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood
* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.
* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them
* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated
* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

FORM 01
Comments made in regard to Strategic Allocation Policy R01 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (with particular reference to Policy R01 (II) Spatial Design)

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for Dunton Hills Garden Village. At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome. It is helpful that there is more clarity on implementation.

Some of the matters raised by the Council in its 2018 response (such as the importance of timely infrastructure provision and the detail of infrastructure to be provided) have been addressed.

A key element of the Council's 2018 response focused on the relationship between the DHGV proposal and its likely impact on the adjoining highway network given the scale of the development proposed (almost 260 hectares of residential lead development and some 2,700 new homes over the plan period).

The comments noted that the DHGV proposal adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the DHGV proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the DHGV proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The Policy R01 Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation in the current consultation Local Plan includes a section on Transport Impact Mitigations (Section H).

This refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures (such as junction improvements, bus routes and public transport improvements) rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate itself is capable of being accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex.

It is welcome that these issues are noted in in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (paragraphs 5.97 - 5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal because of its scale.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan sound or legally compliant, having regard to the matters that you identified above.

Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

FORM 02
Comments made in regard to : Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park

At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome.

The policy / proposal is now for almost 26 hectares of land to be used for employment uses.

Nevertheless, the Local Plan does not evidence why the Brentwood Enterprise Park is would be an acceptable use at an important location in the Green Belt other than to refer the difficulties of accommodating the quantum of development within other parts of the Brentwood borough and the opportunity to capitalize on the connections in the Brentwood Growth Corridor (para. 7.23b).

Havering's 2018 comments noted that a key element in the preparation of the Havering Local Plan has been to ensure that the growth proposed in Havering over the period of the Local Plan is supported by timely and effective provision of infrastructure including transport infrastructure.

The comments noted that the Brentwood Enterprise Park adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The reasoned justification to Policy E11 notes that the proposal has a number of potential access points via the M25 Junction and Warley Street and that it will be expected to mitigate its impacts on the performance of the local and strategic road network. This does not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

The recognition of the importance of the proposal including sustainable transport measures for employees is supported and will help reduce traffic on the A127.
Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended :

* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to set out the views of Havering Council on the Brentwood Local Plan and to ensure that the Council has an opportunity to contribute to the discussions with the Inspector.

Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended:
* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework
* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering
* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood
* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.
* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them
* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated
* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

FORM 01
Comments made in regard to Strategic Allocation Policy R01 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (with particular reference to Policy R01 (II) Spatial Design)

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for Dunton Hills Garden Village. At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome. It is helpful that there is more clarity on implementation.

Some of the matters raised by the Council in its 2018 response (such as the importance of timely infrastructure provision and the detail of infrastructure to be provided) have been addressed.

A key element of the Council's 2018 response focused on the relationship between the DHGV proposal and its likely impact on the adjoining highway network given the scale of the development proposed (almost 260 hectares of residential lead development and some 2,700 new homes over the plan period).

The comments noted that the DHGV proposal adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the DHGV proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the DHGV proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The Policy R01 Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation in the current consultation Local Plan includes a section on Transport Impact Mitigations (Section H).

This refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures (such as junction improvements, bus routes and public transport improvements) rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate itself is capable of being accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex.

It is welcome that these issues are noted in in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (paragraphs 5.97 - 5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal because of its scale.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan sound or legally compliant, having regard to the matters that you identified above.

Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

FORM 02
Comments made in regard to : Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park

At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome.

The policy / proposal is now for almost 26 hectares of land to be used for employment uses.

Nevertheless, the Local Plan does not evidence why the Brentwood Enterprise Park is would be an acceptable use at an important location in the Green Belt other than to refer the difficulties of accommodating the quantum of development within other parts of the Brentwood borough and the opportunity to capitalize on the connections in the Brentwood Growth Corridor (para. 7.23b).

Havering's 2018 comments noted that a key element in the preparation of the Havering Local Plan has been to ensure that the growth proposed in Havering over the period of the Local Plan is supported by timely and effective provision of infrastructure including transport infrastructure.

The comments noted that the Brentwood Enterprise Park adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The reasoned justification to Policy E11 notes that the proposal has a number of potential access points via the M25 Junction and Warley Street and that it will be expected to mitigate its impacts on the performance of the local and strategic road network. This does not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

The recognition of the importance of the proposal including sustainable transport measures for employees is supported and will help reduce traffic on the A127.
Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended :

* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to set out the views of Havering Council on the Brentwood Local Plan and to ensure that the Council has an opportunity to contribute to the discussions with the Inspector.

Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended:
* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework
* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering
* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood
* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.
* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them
* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated
* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

FORM 01
Comments made in regard to Strategic Allocation Policy R01 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (with particular reference to Policy R01 (II) Spatial Design)

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for Dunton Hills Garden Village. At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome. It is helpful that there is more clarity on implementation.

Some of the matters raised by the Council in its 2018 response (such as the importance of timely infrastructure provision and the detail of infrastructure to be provided) have been addressed.

A key element of the Council's 2018 response focused on the relationship between the DHGV proposal and its likely impact on the adjoining highway network given the scale of the development proposed (almost 260 hectares of residential lead development and some 2,700 new homes over the plan period).

The comments noted that the DHGV proposal adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the DHGV proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the DHGV proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The Policy R01 Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation in the current consultation Local Plan includes a section on Transport Impact Mitigations (Section H).

This refers to mitigations necessary to support the DHGV proposal but these do not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network. The focus of the measures is about 'fitting' the proposal into the network with local measures (such as junction improvements, bus routes and public transport improvements) rather than ensuring that the considerable traffic it may generate itself is capable of being accommodated on the wider highway network as well as all the other growth planned for east London and south Essex.

It is welcome that these issues are noted in in the explanatory text to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (paragraphs 5.97 - 5.102) but they should be referenced in the DHGV proposal because of its scale.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

Please set out what modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan sound or legally compliant, having regard to the matters that you identified above.

Policy R01 : Dunton Hills Garden Village Strategic Allocation should be amended :

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the DHGV proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along the corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure (where the Local Plan addresses some issues relating to the wider highways network albeit without referring to DHGV)

FORM 02
Comments made in regard to : Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park

London Borough of Havering commented in 2018 at the Regulation 18 consultation stage of the Brentwood Local Plan and commented on the emerging proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park

At that stage there was relatively little detail on the emerging proposal other than a location and an overview of the likely issues to be addressed.

In the current consultation document, more detail on the proposal has been provided and this is welcome.

The policy / proposal is now for almost 26 hectares of land to be used for employment uses.

Nevertheless, the Local Plan does not evidence why the Brentwood Enterprise Park is would be an acceptable use at an important location in the Green Belt other than to refer the difficulties of accommodating the quantum of development within other parts of the Brentwood borough and the opportunity to capitalize on the connections in the Brentwood Growth Corridor (para. 7.23b).

Havering's 2018 comments noted that a key element in the preparation of the Havering Local Plan has been to ensure that the growth proposed in Havering over the period of the Local Plan is supported by timely and effective provision of infrastructure including transport infrastructure.

The comments noted that the Brentwood Enterprise Park adjoined the A127 trunk road. This is a key route into Havering and intersects with the A12 trunk road at the Gallows Corner intersection.

Havering's comments noted that the A127 is already well trafficked and that Gallows Corner is already highly congested, an accident 'hot-spot' and gives rise to environmental problems such as poor air quality.

Havering's comments noted that other stakeholders had previously objected in principle to the extent of development along the A127 corridor and said that the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal should be considered in that regard.

Havering's comments also highlighted the importance of Transport for London being afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the proposal because the A127 is a Transport for London route once it is within the London boundary.

Havering's comments said that the Local Plan proposal should highlight the joint working taking place between authorities along the A127 corridor because this is an important means to the various authorities ensuring the scale and timing of development along the corridor is taken into account.

Havering continues to liaise with other stakeholders (such as Highways England and Transport for London) on the importance of investment in transport infrastructure and to that end strongly supports the work of the A127 Task Force group of authorities and interested parties in lobbying for improvements to the A127 Corridor in the recognition of the growth planned along it.

The reasoned justification to Policy E11 notes that the proposal has a number of potential access points via the M25 Junction and Warley Street and that it will be expected to mitigate its impacts on the performance of the local and strategic road network. This does not adequately address the strategic implications of this proposal on the wider highway network.

There is no recognition in the proposal about the likely adverse environmental impacts of significant additional traffic along the A127 (including within Havering) resulting from the proposal such as noise, vibration and reductions in air quality.

The recognition of the importance of the proposal including sustainable transport measures for employees is supported and will help reduce traffic on the A127.
Policy PC03 Employment Land Allocations, Policy E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park and Site Allocation E11 Brentwood Enterprise Park should be amended :

* to demonstrate why the proposal is compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework

* to provide explicit commentary on the likely significant implications of the proposal for the wider strategic highway network given the proximity to Havering

* to recognize the importance of working with other stakeholders (such as Transport for London and London Borough of Havering so that there can be certainty that the impacts of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal are satisfactory and can be accommodated without any adverse impact on the network beyond Brentwood

* to recognize the role of the established joint working between authorities along the A127 corridor to ensure that the significant growth along this corridor is understood, assessed and mitigated as necessary.

* to recognize the merit of the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground or Memorandum of Understanding between relevant stakeholders to recognize the issues involved and set out a joint commitment to recognizing these and addressing them

* to recognize that the scale of the Brentwood Enterprise Park proposal and the traffic it will generate is likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts for the wider area (including Havering) and that these need to be considered and mitigated

* to include cross reference to Policy BE11 Strategic Transport Infrastructure

If you wish to participate at the oral part of the Examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary.
In order to set out the views of Havering Council on the Brentwood Local Plan and to ensure that the Council has an opportunity to contribute to the discussions with the Inspector.

For clarity, we suggest that the wording is amended to reflect that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of the full Local Plan rather than the developments within it individually. Any single development may have no discernible impact whereas cumulatively the Local Plan impacts may require mitigation. Accordingly we are looking for evidence on the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan. Similarly, you may wish to amend the wording of policies relating to individual allocations, particularly the strategic allocations for Dunton Hills in Policy R01 (ii) under Transport Impact Mitigations and Brentwood Enterprise Park in Policy E11. These two policies suggest that impacts for these two developments will be assessed in isolation rather than as part of a bigger Local Plan picture.

Thank you for giving Highways England (HE) the opportunity to comment upon the Regulation 19 Pre-Submission Local Plan setting out your development needs, policies and strategies over the period 2016 to 2033. Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.
In the case of the Local Plan, Highways England is interested in the potential impact that the development might have upon the M25 Junctions 28 and 29 and the A12. We would be concerned as to whether there would be any adverse safety implications or material increase in queues and delays on the strategic road network as a result of your Local Plan development.
We have reviewed the Pre-Submission Plan and have the following comments:
As you are aware we have been in discussions with yourself about the transport assessment for the Local Plan concerning the impacts upon the SRN. We are continuing to liaise to look at how any required mitigation at M25 Junctions 28 and 29 may be assessed outside of this Regulation 19 consultation. This is implied if not specifically mentioned in Paragraph 5.101 of the main consultation document text. We look forward to the outcome of your Local Plan impact assessments on the two M25 junctions.
Policies BE11 and BE16 cover Strategic Transport Infrastructure and Mitigating the Transport Impacts of Development. Both policies The former states "any significant impacts from the development on the highway network on highway safety must be effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree in line with policy BE16. The latter policy states that new development will be required to "provide reasonable and proportionate financial contributions/mitigation measures where necessary to mitigate the transport impact of the development to an acceptable degree...Such measures should be provided to meet the first or early occupation of a site...".
For clarity, we suggest that the wording is amended to reflect that there is a need to mitigate the impacts of the full Local Plan rather than the developments within it individually. Any single development may have no discernible impact whereas cumulatively the Local Plan impacts may require mitigation. Accordingly we are looking for evidence on the cumulative impacts of the Local Plan. Similarly, you may wish to amend the wording of policies relating to individual allocations, particularly the strategic allocations for Dunton Hills in Policy R01 (ii) under Transport Impact Mitigations and Brentwood Enterprise Park in Policy E11. These two policies suggest that impacts for these two developments will be assessed in isolation rather than as part of a bigger Local Plan picture.
We note that Paragraph 5.102 Point 2 of the main submission document identifies M25 Junction 28 improvements being undertaken by Highways England and that further engagement will be required on this scheme. Additionally, Point 3 states that mitigation is being considered at M25 Junction 29 in relation to the Brentwood Enterprise Park development. Lower Thames Crossing is also mentioned as impacting upon Junction 29. Paragraph 5.102 is specifically related to third party mitigation to the network. From the Transport Assessment of the Local Plan we are aware that additional Local Plan development is likely to impact upon these two junctions and potentially requiring mitigation. Again, we will continue to liaise in relation to this assessment.
We hope that you find these comments useful and we look forward to further correspondence in due course. We will be in touch again when we receive details from you of the Local Plan impact assessments upon M25 Junctions 28 and 29.

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

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

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on your Local Plan pre-submission consultation.
We welcome the Council's strategic longer-term approach to housing supply. Your target accommodates a 'buffer' on top of the housing need based on the Government's standardised methodology. It should be noted that our latest demographic modelling provides alternative population and household projections that could also be taken into account when applying the standardised approach. Our projections include consistent outputs for all local authorities in England and form the basis for housing need in the draft new London Plan. They are available on the London Datastore: https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/projections .
We also welcome the Council's commitment to the preparation of a Joint Strategic Plan with the other South Essex authorities and associated strategic planning for growth in the area. We would be happy to support the preparation of the Plan and its technical evidence.
It would be useful to understand the relationship between the Council's Growth Strategy and the joint South Essex Strategic Growth Locations Study. It is also noted that Thurrock's Local Plan Issues and Options (Part 2) consultation includes a new settlement on the border with Brentwood amongst its growth options.
In terms of economic development, we note the significant allocation of additional employment land, in particular through the Brentwood Enterprise Park. In the light of its proximity to London, it could be useful to discuss related collaboration opportunities, specifically including land for distribution and logistics, as well as wider sustainability implications.
Any significant future changes to the town centre hierarchy within the Borough, including significant new retail/leisure development, should consider any potential impacts on town centre retail/leisure provision within London as well as on the sustainability of travel patterns.
It should be noted that Brentwood is located within the new London Plan's Strategic Infrastructure Priorities 'Great Eastern Mainline (London - Ipswich - Norwich) and A12' and 'Essex Thameside, A217 and A13 corridor' (see Policy SD3 and Figure 2.15). The Lower Thames Crossing will also have implications for travel and land use in the Borough, which will need to be considered as the scheme progresses.
As set out in the consultation response by Transport for London, we welcome the Council's support for sustainable modes of transport. As Brentwood borders London, we would be grateful, if consideration could also be given to the Healthy Streets Approach that is set out in the Mayor's Transport Strategy and Policy T2 of the draft London Plan.
We would be happy to discuss the matters raised above as well as matters related to the preparation of the Joint Strategic Plan further. Please get in touch with Jorn Peters if you would like to arrange a meeting.

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

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

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

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

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

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



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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



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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

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

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

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

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

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

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

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

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

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

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DUNTON HALL

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

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

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

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

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


EAST HORNDON HALL

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

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


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


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

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



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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

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

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


Further representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

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

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

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

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



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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



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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

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

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

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

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

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

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

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

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

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

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DUNTON HALL

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

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

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

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

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


EAST HORNDON HALL

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

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


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


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

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



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

Representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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






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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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

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

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


Further representations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove Dunton Hills GardenVillage and the Brentwood Enterprise Park from plan.

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

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

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

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

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



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

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

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

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

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

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

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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



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

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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


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

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


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

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

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

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

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

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

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

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

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

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

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DUNTON HALL

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

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

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

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

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


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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


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

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

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





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

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

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

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

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


EAST HORNDON HALL

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

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


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


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW

Remove Dunton Hills Garden Village and the Brentwood Enterprise Park from plan.

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW

Remove Dunton Hills Garden Village and the Brentwood Enterprise Park from plan.

BRENTWOOD COUNCIL'S PUBLICATION LOCAL PLAN

REGULATION 19 CONSULTATION

REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY
DUNTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Contact details
This response is submitted on behalf of the Association by:

Mr. Edward Paul Cowen

Capacity
Mr. Cowen is the chairman of the Association.

Number of persons represented
157 (the number of members of the Association)

Authorisation
Residents' views about the emerging Local Plan and its impact on the village of Dunton have been gathered at Annual General Meetings of the Association.

Oral hearings
The Association does not wish to participate in the oral hearings of the Inspection.


Requests to be notified
Pursuant to Regulations 24, 25 and 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 the Association requests to be notified of:-

(1) the submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination

(2) the publication of the recommendations of the person appointed to carry out the examination; and

(3) the adoption of the Local Plan by the Authority.

The notifications should be sent to Cowen@elbornes.com


PART ONE - BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Dunton Wayletts: History and character

Dunton Wayletts, or Dunton as it is often referred to, is a thin linear settlement running from a point a little north of the A127 to its southern extremity at Lower Dunton Hall (at the south-western corner of the Basildon Borough boundary).

Its recorded history goes back to the Domesday Book, where its name is recorded as Dantona. "Wayletts" is derived from the Saxon "waylete", meaning a meeting of roads, and refers to the ancient crossroads where the road running eastwards from West Horndon (Nightingale Lane) met the road running northwards from Horndon-on-the-Hill (Lower Dunton Road). Because the relatively modern Southend Arterial Road was built a little to the south of the crossroads this historic spot has remained undisturbed by traffic, and its charm has been preserved.



CROSSROADS AND "WAYLETTS" FARMHOUSE

The village consists of about 80 fixed properties, most of which are residential, although the village is home to a small number of businesses which are in the main engaged in farming, rural activities or services dependent on a rural setting. On the eastern edge of the village lies Dunton Park, a licensed park home site containing about 170 residential park homes.

Visually Dunton's coherence is established by a north-south spine of historic buildings, two of which (Friern Manor and Dunton Hall) represent the two manors that made up the parish from the 11th Century onwards.

The Langdon Nature Reserve lies in the southern portion of the village.

In spite of its proximity to Laindon, Dunton Wayletts retains a strong rural character and a distinct identity.

Since Saxon times Dunton Wayletts has enjoyed a successful rural economy, and the traditional predominance of sheep farming is still evident. The village's economy has, however, adapted to modern society. In particular there is now greater emphasis on recreation, and nowadays the panoramic views that characterise the area support two wedding venues.

2. Map of the village








3. Sources of potential confusion

Two names for the same settlement
The settlement is known as both Dunton and Dunton Wayletts. The two names are interchangeable, both having a very long history.

A single settlement intersected by a major highway
Three things have come together to create the impression that there are two settlements at Dunton, one called Dunton Wayletts and the other called Dunton Village. Firstly the settlement was bisected in the early 20th Century by the Southend Arterial Road (A127). Secondly most maps, including Ordnance Survey maps, display the name of the settlement as Dunton Wayletts and position the name north of the A127. Thirdly place-name plates installed at the entrance points to the southern section of the village were erroneously inscribed with "Dunton Village" instead of "Dunton Wayletts".

The correct position is that there remains a single village at this point.

Not part of Laindon
Dunton is sometimes treated in planning documents as though it were an outlying part of Laindon.

On the contrary it is, historically and in practice, a separate settlement that was not absorbed into the New Town of Basildon. It remains a village inset in the Green Belt.

Ford Dunton
The Ford Research Centre on the A127 is confusingly known as Ford Dunton but is in fact in Laindon. Dunton Wayletts was the nearest settlement when the Research Centre was established in 1967, but Laindon has since expanded westwards and absorbed the site.

4. Relationship with the Borough of Brentwood
Dunton Wayletts lies just outside the boundary of the Borough of Brentwood. Its westernmost properties (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) abut the boundary. Consequently decisions made by the Authority can have a substantial impact on the village.



PART TWO - REPRESENTATIONS

A. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Overarching Aims

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The spatial strategy focuses growth on the Borough's two transport corridors but fails to recognise that the A127 has no spare capacity whereas a major increase in capacity is planned for the A12.

Explanation
35% of the new homes in the Plan period (but 44% of the Allocation Total ) are allocated to the A127 corridor. 78% of new employment land is allocated to the A127 corridor.

In a Duty to Co-operate meeting on 28th June 2017 with Basildon Council and Essex County Council the Authority was asked how Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) had come to be an option. The Authority's reply was that existing settlements had been looked at and that the A12 acts as a "severe limiting factor to the North at any scale".

The Authority's strategy overlooks the fact that there is no current or anticipated spare traffic capacity on the A127, whereas significant additional capacity is planned for the A12 corridor:-
* The A127 is already operating at its capacity.
* Basildon Council, Castle Point Council, Rochford Council and Southend-on-Sea Council have growth plans that will overburden the A127 corridor.
* Planned improvements to the A127 are limited to junction improvements.
* Financing for radical improvement (in the form of widening to three lanes each way) will not be forthcoming as the A127 is not classified as a strategic highway.
* The A12 by contrast is a strategic highway and is due to be widened to three lanes in each direction between the M25 and Chelmsford, which will open up new areas for development and offer major scope for growth.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be made in the north of the Borough.





B. Representations relating to Section 03: Spatial Strategy - Vision and Strategic Objectives

Representation 1
Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
The strategy is unreasonable and disproportionate in that it concentrates growth excessively at one particular point in the Borough.

Explanation
As mentioned in Section A, Representation 1, The Authority proposes to allocate 44% of the Allocation Total of homes and 78% of the Borough's new employment land to the small zone south of the A127. That zone amounts to just 5% of the land area of the Borough.

Such a proposal is clumsy in the extreme and does not represent proper and thoughtful planning.

An authority has a legal duty to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner. Such an unbalanced strategy is neither reasonable nor proportionate and so is unlawful.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant Dunton Hills Garden Village, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and provision for housing and employment growth should be distributed in a proportionate fashion across the Borough.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Test not met
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Plan concentrates the loss of Green Belt land at one point in the Borough. This decision was based on a preconception and not on evidence.


Explanation
The Authority proposes the siting of 4,281 homes in the Borough's Green Belt. Of this total the Authority proposes to locate 63% in the Green Belt south of the A127. Yet the area south of the A127 represents just 5% of the land area of the Borough. This extreme outcome, combined with the absence of Green Belt assessments at the time when the decision was made, indicates that the Authority has failed to consider the matter in the careful manner expected of a planning authority and has simply dumped the housing allocation at an arbitrary point in the Green Belt.

In paragraph 3.21 of the Plan a comparison between the wording of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) lays bare the preconception that has driven the sacrifice of the Green Belt in the Dunton area. The preconception is that only brownfield sites may be developed in the northern part of the Borough, whereas any sites may be developed in the southern part. In fact the evidence, in the form of the Green Belt Assessment, shows the opposite: the Dunton area is one of the least appropriate areas in the Borough at which to sacrifice Green Belt land.

The claim in the opening words of Paragraph 3.21 that the conclusion was reached "through a process of sequential analysis and review of sites" is preposterous. The selection of Dunton Hills Garden Village occurred long before evidence was gathered. When the evidence belatedly disclosed the inappropriateness of the site it was disregarded.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch. Potential development sites should be selected objectively on the basis of the evidence that exists now and not on the prejudgement that a large area at the south of the Borough will be developed.


C. Representations relating to Section 05: Resilient Built Environment - Transport and Connectivity

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The strategy fails to exploit the Elizabeth Line's capacity to accommodate growth in the north of the Borough.

Explanation
Many references are made in the "Transport and Connectivity" section of the Plan to maximising the benefits of the Elizabeth Line, but the strategy fails to do this.

The Elizabeth Line will at Shenfield run up to 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak hours, each train carrying up to 1,500 passengers. The Line will therefore bring additional peak-hour capacity of up to 18,000 passengers.

But instead of concentrating growth to the north of the Borough in order to exploit this additional capacity, the Authority proposes to site the majority of its new housing need south of the A127, where the rail network is at capacity and cannot be improved.

The key to this irrational planning policy can be found in the subjective approach (referred to in Representation 2 of Section B) evident in Paragraph 3.21 of the Plan. That paragraph contains a very obvious prejudgement that only brownfield development would be acceptable near Brentwood, whereas any development would be acceptable at the southern extremity of the Borough.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn and rewritten from scratch, concentrating growth on the A12 corridor.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The proposal to site a "garden community" adjacent to the London-Southend line and not the Elizabeth Line is inconsistent with the strategy set out in the Statement of Common Ground to which the Authority is a signatory.

Explanation
In the South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018 , local authorities including the Authority recognise the potential for new garden communities; they note that the opportunities that they offer for the sub-region are dependent on significant investment in road and rail infrastructure; and they conclude that the opening of the Elizabeth Line offers major advantages in terms of connectivity to the new garden communities.

Against this background it is irrational for the Authority to propose in its Plan a garden community linked not to the Elizabeth Line but to the London-Southend line, which is at capacity.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Dunton Hills Garden Village should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth redirected to other areas of the Borough. If a garden community is the most appropriate solution, then it should be linked to the Elizabeth Line.



D. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Dunton Hills Garden Village

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
The envisaged Plan is not robust because it places excessive reliance on one site, Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), which at best could not deliver homes in the timeframe expected and at worst could prove a completely unviable location.

Explanation
DHGV was selected to meet the majority of the Borough's housing need within the Plan period and beyond (paragraph 5.90 of the Plan).

According to the Local Development Plan Housing Trajectory included as Appendix 1 to the Plan housing delivery would begin in 2022/23. Given the lack of existing infrastructure it is wholly unrealistic to expect construction to start in 3 - 4 years' time. When the site was first proposed as Dunton Garden Suburb the Authority stated, in the related consultation document:
If approved, any development is likely to take a minimum of 8 years before anything would happen on site.

Furthermore the DHGV site is affected by a large number of constraints, including a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline, pylons, a wind turbine, high flood risk, ancient woodland, highest-ranked Green Belt value, a Historic Environment Zone, proximity to a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a wildlife connectivity corridor, listed buildings, poor road access and exceptionally high pollution levels. Several of these have the potential to rule out the development of DHGV altogether.

In response to this, Policy R01, paragraph C, merely states:
Successful development of the site allocation will require ... proposals to creatively address the key site constraints.

The crucial question is whether those constraints can be overcome, and the Plan leaves that question unanswered.

The Authority has produced a Plan in which the delivery of the majority of its housing target is reliant on a single site, whose viability is in serious doubt. The Plan is, consequently, ineffective.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed as a development site and the housing growth distributed to more viable sites in the Borough where the delivery of homes can be assured.


Representation 2
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Explanation
The Metropolitan Green Belt has an irregular shape but is in broad terms about 20 miles wide. At the point between Basildon and Upminster it measures only 5 miles.

This is the narrowest and most vulnerable point of the Metropolitan Green Belt. To make an incursion into the Green Belt at this point would cause severe damage to the Green Belt.

Precisely this view is held at national level. The following is an extract from the Secretary of State's letter of decision against Tillingham Hall, a proposed large-scale development on a site slightly further west than DHGV but in the same narrow part of the Green Belt:

The Green Belt in this area forms a relatively narrow gap of some five miles which, the Inspector concludes, undoubtedly prevents the coalescence of the built-up areas. Furthermore, it represents the only major break in development between London and Southend. The secretary of State agrees with the Inspector's view that the loss of the appeal site would fragment this gap and hence severely damage the MGB.

DHGV would effectively bridge the gap between Laindon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The overall effect would be to reduce the separation distance between the urban edge of Basildon and the eastern edge of Greater London at Cranham from five miles to zero. That is unacceptable. 5 miles is the accepted nec plus infra.


In paragraph 12.4 of his report the Tillingham Hall Inquiry Inspector wrote:

Nor is it reasonable to view the 5-mile gap as unreasonably wide; this was seen as the minimum dimension when Sir Patrick Abercrombie produced his Greater London Plan with this particular tract of open countryside included in the green belt around the metropolis. ... As applied to London in more recent years the width accepted by successive Secretaries of State as normally acceptable for the MGB has been 12-15 miles. In this context, a mere 5 miles is seen to be much less than the desirable width.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites outside the 5-mile margin of open countryside between Basildon and Upminster.


Representation 3

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Of the potential Green Belt development sites in the Borough the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been professionally assessed as one of the most harmful to the Green Belt and least suitable for development.

Explanation
An independent consultant, Crestwood Environmental, instructed by the Authority, carried out a Borough-wide Green Belt Assessment in 2016 and assessed the DHGV site as High, the highest of the 5 levels used. "High", in the assessment, signified that the area scored particularly well as to fulfilling the five recognised purposes of the Green Belt. Accordingly development would be particularly damaging to the Green Belt at the DHGV site.

Only 4% of the 203 sites assessed were judged High. In terms of harm to the Green Belt the DHGV site is therefore among the 4% worst places to develop in the Borough.


Immediately to the south of the site the same corridor of open land runs into the Borough of Thurrock. In Thurrock Council's recent Green Belt assessment , that corridor of land was judged "fundamental". In that assessment (1) land categorised as "fundamental" in relation to the Green Belt is land where strategic level of development would conflict fundamentally with Green Belt purpose; and (2) continued inclusion of such land within the Green Belt is of fundamental importance.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth should (to the extent the encroachment on the Green Belt is unavoidable) be redirected to sites assessed as having lower Green Belt value.


Representation 4

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.

Explanation
Southend-on-Sea, the seventh most densely populated area of the Kingdom outside London, lies to the east of Basildon. It is separated to a degree from Basildon by farmland at North Benfleet and Bowers Gifford, but the only truly open expanse of countryside between Southend and Greater London is the (already relatively narrow) gap between Basildon and Upminster.

The bridging of that gap by Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site, combined with the existing significant settlement at West Horndon, would create a sense of one vast conurbation stretching from the coast at Southend to London with no "green lung" to sustain the quality of life of those living in the area. The fact that the gaps would not be completely closed is not the point: it is the perception of merging that matters.

The Inspector for the Tillingham Hall Inquiry observed:

It is also relevant that, to the east, Basildon is closely followed by other areas of urban development leading to Southend. The gap in which Tillingham Hall lies is all the more valuable as being the only major break in development between London and Southend on this east-west axis.

The Secretary of State, in accepting the Inspector's recommendation to dismiss the developers' appeal, agreed with that finding.

To interfere with that gap would, in planning terms, be a disaster for the A127 corridor.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough where they will not cause settlement coalescence.

Representation 5

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.

Explanation
The opening words of the section "Green Belt Debate: the Positive Case" in the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues are:

The use of Green Belt has prevented 'ribbon' or 'strip' development whereby a continuous but shallow band of development forms along the main roads between towns.

DHGV, the East Horndon employment site and Brentwood Enterprise Park would create a shallow band of development along the A127 from Laindon to the M25. The Authority is therefore promoting ribbon development, one of the most objectionable forms of urban expansion.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.




Representation 6

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
Interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.

Explanation
Green Belts should have boundaries that are defined clearly using physical features that are readily recognisable and are likely to be permanent (paragraph 139(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework).

The existing eastern boundary of the Green Belt gap between Basildon and Outer London is defined, from north to south, by the B148 (West Mayne), followed by the B1036, followed by the brow of the Dunton Hills. The B148 and B1036 provide a strong and recognisable urban edge at Laindon because they are wide, modern B roads. The brow of the Dunton Hills at the western edge of the Great Berry development provides a strong and recognisable natural edge on account of the dramatic landscape change from 50 metres above sea level to 20 metres in the Mardyke Valley below. The three together form a more or less straight line from north to south. The line is recognisable visually and it is also logical, which means that it is both clear and likely to be permanent.

The M25, being a motorway, forms a very strong, recognisable and visible western boundary to this Green Belt gap.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV), the East Horndon employment area and Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively create a corridor of development between Basildon and Cranham.

The effect would be to break up the longitudinal boundaries, leaving the Green Belt in the area with no identifiable boundary, to the east or west, at all.

It must be remembered that the boundaries of the new developments themselves cannot be "physical features" for the purposes of paragraph 139(f) (otherwise all developments would satisfy paragraph 139(f) and that paragraph would serve no purpose). The Authority acknowledged this at a Duty to Co-operate Workshop with Basildon and Thurrock Councils on 7th December 2016 .


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 7

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.

Explanation
Referring to the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Local Government Association's Planning on the Doorstep: the Big Issues states:

[T]he types of areas of land that might seem to make a relatively limited contribution to the overall Green Belt, or which might be considered for development through a review of the Green Belt according to the five Green Belt purposes, would be where:
* it would effectively be 'infill', with the land partially enclosed by development
* the development would be well contained by the landscape e.g. with rising land
* there would be little harm to the qualities that contributed to the distinct identity of separate settlements in reality
* a strong boundary could be created with a clear distinction between 'town' and 'country'.

The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites fail to exhibit any of these characteristics: -

They would not be infill.
On the contrary, both developments would protrude from open countryside. Neither site is partially enclosed by existing development.

They would not be well contained by the landscape.
The land is flat, and the developments would be conspicuous.

DHGV would cause very great harm to the distinctness of West Horndon and Dunton Wayletts.
The gaps between the DHGV site and neighbouring settlements would be negligible: 200 metres from the most westerly houses in Dunton and 500 metres from West Horndon.

They would create a weak boundary.
See Representation 6 above.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy, DHGV, Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, the Green Belt boundary in the area between Basildon and the M25 should remain unchanged and the housing and employment growth reallocated to sites elsewhere in the Borough.


Representation 8

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would be adjacent to a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Explanation
The eastern edge of the proposed DHGV site coincides with the Bacton to Horndon-on-the-Hill gas transmission line. This pipeline is classified as a Major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

When the national gas grid was built the pipelines were routed away from built-up areas because of the potential for accidents involving great loss of life. The risk is not a theoretical one. In 2004 a major gas transmission line exploded in Ghislenghien, Belgium, killing 24 and injuring 122. In 2014 alone North America saw five major gas pipeline explosions.

This line is a 36" conduit transmitting a flammable substance at a pressure of 70 bar. Any rupture could have disastrous consequences for occupied premises in its vicinity.

An escape with immediate detonation is one scenario. But the topography of the area lends itself to the possibility of a vapour cloud explosion, the mechanism believed to lie behind the explosion at Bunsfield in December 2005. Explosions of this type have the potential for damage over a much wider area. In the case of Bunsfield damage was frequent in buildings up to 2km away and occasional in buildings up to 4km away.

It would be irresponsible to site a major housing development in the area proposed.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth directed to safer areas of the Borough.

Representation 9

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in an area of exceptionally poor air quality.

Explanation
The DHGV site adjoins the A127, a heavily used and congested highway carrying a disproportionate number of heavy goods vehicles, such vehicles being almost exclusively diesel-powered. The contribution made by heavy traffic, and diesel engines in particular, to poor air quality is well documented.

Annual CO levels in the Dunton area are calculated by Defra, in its National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, to be 297 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level.

Annual NO2 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 94 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for nitrous oxide pollution.

Annual non-methane volatile organic compound levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 91 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for VOC pollution.

As to particulate matter, annual PM10 levels in the Dunton area are calculated in the Inventory to be 9.6 tonnes/km². This is a harmful level. With other locations adjacent to the A127 the Dunton area is among the worst locations in the area for particulate matter pollution.

The additional traffic generated by DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park, and especially the commercial vehicle movements to and from Brentwood Enterprise Park, would worsen an already dangerous local pollution problem.

It would be irresponsible for the Authority to place new housing south of the A127 when there are healthier areas of the Borough available. Such a strategy would contravene paragraphs 170(e) and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth reallocated to less polluted areas in the north of the Borough.

Representation 10

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The proposed Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site is a Historic Environment Zone, meaning that it is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development. DHGV would cause severe harm to that environment.

Explanation
The proposed DHGV site is a Historic Environment Zone. In the Essex Thames Gateway Historical Environment Characterisation Project 2007, Area 107_1 (the area of countryside between the A128 and Laindon) scores three. This is the highest rating. It means that the area is highly sensitive to medium to large-scale development.

The DHGV development would in particular harm the character and setting of the historic village of Dunton Wayletts, two of whose listed buildings (St. Mary's Church and Dunton Hall) lie just 200 metres to the east of the DHGV site.

Eve Francis, in an article in Essex Countryside (April 1969), observes:
Dunton Wayletts is probably unique for this part of Essex in that it has remained practically unaltered in outline and population for many centuries.

Dunton Wayletts was an important trading village in Saxon times. Its importance for trade lay in its position at a crossroads. This crossroads, or "wayletts", remains at the north of the village. Dunton Wayletts is a linear settlement that grew southwards in that era along what is now Lower Dunton Road because that road was the trading route to Horndon-on-the-Hill, already an important market town.

The history of Dunton Wayletts is preserved in visual terms by a long spine of ten historic buildings and one historic site aligned along the Saxon axis (and in some cases standing on the precise spot occupied by the Saxon structures that preceded them). From north to south the spine consists of the blacksmith's shop, Wayletts (which has remnants of Saxon origin), Friern Manor, the moated site at The Old Rectory, Old Rectory Cottage, The Old Rectory, The Old School House, Mulebbis, St. Mary's Church (whose site has Saxon origins), Dunton Hall and Lower Dunton Hall.


DUNTON HALL

In terms of paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the settlement contributes to the openness of the countryside separating Laindon from West Horndon, and the open countryside provides a historically appropriate setting for the village.

A modern development on the scale proposed and built to within a few hundred metres of the ancient village would destroy that setting.

Dunton Wayletts is the only linear Saxon settlement in South Essex whose distinctive shape has remained virtually unaltered since early times. There are very few substantial Saxon remains in Essex, and it is all the more important to preserve what testimony we have of the Saxon era in our County.

Allocating the area between Laindon and the A128 for development is inconsistent with paragraph 185 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and housing growth re-allocated to areas of the Borough that are less historically sensitive.


Representation 11

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.


Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.

Explanation
This church overlooks the Dunton Hills Garden Village site. All Saints' is disused as a place of worship but is deemed so outstanding in heritage terms that it is preserved in its ecclesiastical form by the Churches Conservation Trust. It is one of only eleven such churches in Essex.

On its website the Trust describes All Saints' as follows:
This fascinating church is built of mellow red Tudor brick and stands in magnificent isolation with wide views to the Thames. The Tyrells of nearby Heron Hall rebuilt the Norman church in the 15th-century and were buried here for four centuries. ... There is an exquisite memorial slab to Lady Alice Tyrell (who died in 1422) and a little chantry containing the tomb of Sir Thomas Tyrell (who died in 1476) and his wife. Also to be seen are curious galleried upper rooms in the transepts, one with a Tudor fireplace which may have housed a resident priest.





ALL SAINTS' CHURCH

This precious building's "magnificent isolation" and dominant position are integral to its character. Its setting would be transformed and ruined if it were to overlook a modern housing estate, and long-distance views to the church would be lost.

All Saints' is a Grade I listed building.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and housing and employment growth reallocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.

Representation 12
Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village and the East Horndon development would surround or be in close proximity to several listed buildings, including "Dunton Hills", East Horndon Hall, the Freman Monument (which, although not a building, is listed), St Mary's Church and Dunton Hall.


EAST HORNDON HALL

A modern housing and industrial development would be insensitive to the age and character of the listed buildings in and adjacent to the proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites and would create an aesthetically offensive setting for them.

In the light of the Court of Appeal's decision in the Barnwell Manor case it should be noted that, even if the harm that would be caused is less than substantial, considerable weight and importance should be afforded, when planning decisions are made, to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings - and that the same requirement applies to listed buildings of all grades.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth re-allocated to less damaging areas of the Borough.


Representation 13

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The numbers for Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would not justify schools at the site, and so the site is not sustainable.

Explanation
At a Duty to Co-operate meeting between the Authority and Basildon Council and Essex County Council on 28th June 2017 Essex County Council indicated that the numbers for DHGV were only "borderline" to justify the proposed schools. That was at a time when Basildon Council was planning for 1,000 homes at Dunton on its side of the boundary and when the concept agreed between the two councils was that one school would serve the new homes on both sides of the border. Now that Basildon Council's intended allocation at Dunton has been reduced to 300, DHGV is unlikely to justify its own school. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements. In this respect DHGV is not a sustainable location.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to sustainable sites within the Borough.

Representation 14

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The local road network could not absorb the increase in vehicle movements resulting from Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV).

Explanation
The A128 is a heavily used single-carriageway road forming a link between the A13 and the A127. There are no plans to upgrade it. The only feasible access point for DHGV (see Representation 15 below) would be an unsatisfactory junction with the A128 handling an excessive volume of traffic. The junction on the opposite side of the A128 (feeding West Horndon) is overloaded at peak times. Neither the access road itself nor the A128 could adequately cope with the traffic from a 2,500-home development.

The A13 is 7 km away from the DHGV site, whereas the A127 is less than one km away. The A13, which is about to be upgraded in the area, has the greater capacity to take traffic originating from DHGV eastwards or westwards. The majority of motorists, however, will head for the closer A127, which is already operating at capacity and has no prospect of being upgraded in the Plan period.

As explained in Representation 13 above the numbers for DHGV are unlikely to justify a new school on site. The transportation of children to schools in other settlements would lead to significant additional vehicle movements.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth directed to areas of the Borough not reliant on the A127 or A128.

Representation 15

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT EFFECTIVE.

Summary
A 2,500-home development at the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site would be effectively inaccessible.

Explanation
Access from the south or east
The DHGV site would be inaccessible from the south because of the London-Southend railway line. An access road to the east would be impractical firstly because of the distance from the nearest road, Lower Dunton Road (which would in any case be incapable of handling the volume of traffic) and secondly because the new road would bisect a wildlife corridor.


Access from the north (A127)
Access from the north would need to be via a grade-separated junction with the A127. The presence of ancient woodland would make it difficult to construct such a junction. Furthermore the existing junctions at Dunton and the Halfway House are only two kilometres apart. It would not be possible to interpose a further junction without breaching national standards for minimum weaving-length.

Access from the west (A128)
The only remaining access option would be from the west. The western part of the site lies within Flood Zone 3. A report by consultants Odyssey Markides commented that providing an access road through flood zones 2 or 3 is costly both in terms of construction and maintenance and does not usually represent a viable access strategy and concluded:

The potential for an access off the A128 has been explored. However, it has been concluded that this is not a viable option.

An A128 access road into the northern half of the site is ruled out because it would cut through ancient woodland. The access point to the A128 would, even if the flooding constraints could be overcome, be limited to a one-kilometre stretch of the A128 further south. A development of 2,500 homes would sensibly require more than one access road, but it would not be practical to position more than one junction on such a short stretch of road.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan effective DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth reallocated to sites within the Borough which are accessible for the size of development involved.

Representation 16

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would reduce much-needed public access to open space.

Explanation
The countryside to the west of Dunton Wayletts provides a publicly accessible and sustainable link between Langdon Hills Country Park and Thorndon Country Park. A network of country lanes, footpaths and bridleways enables people to walk from one to the other without encountering a main road except for the unavoidable need to pass over the A127 and A128.

This varied and interesting stretch of countryside is visited by villagers and non-villagers alike. Walkers in the nearby urban area have easy access to it via Colony Path and Church Road.

DHGV would damage this space by replacing the natural environment with housing and other structures. Its recreational value and visual appeal would be lost, and residents of the nearby urban areas would be deprived of an asset that offers not only access to an area of natural countryside but also a unique insight into the recent and more ancient history of the area.

Even though Footpaths 109/69 and 109/68 might be retained and even though patches of countryside might be preserved alongside them, public access would effectively be removed by the development. The reason for this is one of perception. Once bordered by housing and commercial developments the pathways would appear to "belong" to the adjacent housing or commercial estate, and so the wider community asset represented by the present network would be devalued.

DHGV represents a threat to open access and contravenes paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth reallocated to areas of the Borough where developments would not reduce access to open space or negate the value of such access.

Representation 17

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would bisect an important wildlife connectivity corridor.

Explanation
The open land between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon forms a wildlife connectivity corridor between Thorndon Country Park and Langdon Hills Country Park. DHGV, together with the East Horndon employment site, would cut into the corridor. The developments would interfere with the passage of wildlife between habitats at the two parks (see Essex Wildlife Trust's response to the Authority's Strategic Growth Options Report).

The disruption of a coherent ecological network is directly contrary to paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

This area of open land is highly ecologically sensitive:
* It lies in a vital wildlife corridor, as noted above.
* It includes the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site.
* It includes Green Meadows, which is a Potential Local Wildlife Site. This PLoWS is recorded by the Authority as requiring further survey work but having potential for significant reptile and invertebrate populations.
* The land is peppered with undisturbed reedbeds, which are likely to be habitats for numerous wildlife populations. An example is the pond adjacent to the southern end of Nightingale Lane.

To allocate the ecologically sensitive Dunton area for development when there are less sensitive areas of the Borough available contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to less ecologically sensitive areas of the Borough.

Representation 18

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would intrude into the Mardyke Valley, a valued landscape.

Explanation
The northern (south-flowing) tributary of the Mardyke runs through the DHGV area.

Thurrock Council, in its Sustainability Appraisal 2007, identified two Special Landscape Areas: the Mardyke Valley and Langdon Hills. These were adopted because of their landscape importance in a regional or County-wide context.

The siting of a large-scale urban development in the Mardyke Valley would severely damage a valued landscape. In failing to protect and enhance a valued landscape the Authority is in contravention of paragraphs 127(c) and 170(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan, and growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough that are of no recognised landscape value.

Representation 19

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.

Explanation
The Mardyke Valley, in which the proposed DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park sites lie, is one of the backbones of the Thames Chase Community Forest. Thames Chase is not a single forest but a network of woods, forests and country parks linked by open countryside. The Mardyke Valley is a corridor of countryside linking Thorndon Country Park, at the northernmost end of Thames Chase, with country parks and other sites further south.

DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park would cut across the Mardyke Valley and create an urban barrier that would:
* virtually separate the northern end of Thames Chase from the southern area,
* establish housing and industrial buildings instead of retaining countryside and enhancing the existing woodland, and
* render the existing network of footpaths and bridleways pointless as public countryside access.

The Thames Chase Trust's Mission Statement includes:
With a goal of eventually covering 30% of open land with woodland, to say nothing of connecting up all the natural and historic attractions so that everyone can travel from one to another without going on a busy road this is a project that has a lot further to go.

The Authority's proposals are in direct conflict with the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest. In failing to take this into account the Authority has contravened paragraph 142 of the National Planning Policy Framework.


Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and housing and employment growth redirected to areas further north in the Borough and away from the Borough's only community forest.

Representation 20

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would threaten ancient woodlands.

Explanation
The corridor of land, running roughly north-south through the proposed DHGV site along the path of the Mardyke, is ancient woodland. It is the southern leg of the ancient woodland at Eastlands Spring, the whole wood being a Local Wildlife Site. The Association has reason to believe that the coppice a little to the north of the centre of the proposed DHGV site is also ancient woodland.

The ministerial foreword to the Keepers of Time policy statement, endorsed by Government, confirms that an ancient woodland is inseparable from the landscape of which it forms a part and a place to which the inhabitant of the modern world can retreat and relax. The proposal to remove the open countryside around these ancient woodlands, and to downgrade these woods from imposing retreats to arboreal patches enclosed by modern development, flies in the face of Government policy.

One of the Keepers of Time policy's strategic objectives is to improve the quality of recreational experience of those woods which are open to public access. DHGV would ruin the recreational experience of this, an ancient wood open to public access, and so would be contrary to national objectives.

One of the threats to ancient woodlands highlighted by the policy is this:
Even if the woodland itself is protected, it can suffer serious disturbance where houses or roads are built right up to its margins, both directly from the impact of the development, and indirectly through changes to drainage.


DHGV would depend on Eastlands Spring, a tiny tributary to the Mardyke, to remove surface water from a 3-square-kilometre development on land with a known drainage problem. The resultant dramatic alteration to the flow though the Mardyke would threaten the ancient wood. In this respect too DHGV would contravene national policy on ancient woodlands.

The Plan is accordingly inconsistent with paragraph 170(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, and any planning application for the developments would have to be refused under paragraph 175(c) of the Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and housing growth redirected to an area or areas of the Borough without ancient woodlands.

Representation 21

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Explanation
The proposed DHGV and East Horndon sites are in close proximity to the SSSI at Thorndon Country Park. These proposed developments would reduce the buffer zone to the south-east of the SSSI to well under one mile and would therefore have an adverse impact on the SSSI.

The inclusion in the Plan of DHGV and the East Horndon employment site therefore contravenes paragraph 174(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV and the East Horndon employment site should be removed from the Plan and growth redirected away from the SSSI at Thorndon Park.

Representation 22

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) development would lie in a high-risk flood zone.

Explanation
The centre of the DGHV site, roughly following the route of the Mardyke (or Eastland Spring as that stretch is often known) is designated by the Environment Agency as an area at the greatest risk ("high") of surface water flooding.

Because of the flatness of the land surface water in the Dunton area tends to pool and be absorbed very slowly in situ into the ground. The modest volumes that do migrate drain into the Mardyke. The capacity of the Mardyke is very limited indeed. DHGV would remove much of Dunton's absorption surface and force large additional volumes of surface water into the Mardyke. The Mardyke would be overwhelmed and flood downstream at Bulphan.

To select this area of the Borough for a major development flies in the face of paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to some of the many areas of the Borough at low risk of flooding.


Representation 23

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
The Dunton area is required to be left undeveloped for aviation purposes.

Explanation
The sky above the open land to the west of Dunton Wayletts is used for aerial acrobatics. Any urban development in that area would constitute congestion for the purposes of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2014 and is not permissible.


The flight-path for the Heathrow arrival stream follows the A127. The southward departure stream from Stansted intersects it as it passes over the open countryside in the vicinity of Dunton Wayletts. To add to this, aircraft held in the Lambourne Stack pass through the same airspace.

Figures compiled by the airlines and reported in The Guardian (23rd July 2001) reveal that Britain has the most crowded airspace in Europe, with seven of the twelve worst traffic-control danger spots. The airspace over the above-mentioned open space was ranked the sixth most dangerous in Europe. In terms of public safety it would be imprudent to build housing in this location.

Furthermore it is necessary to maintain open areas adjacent to the flight-paths and stacks so that fuel may be safely dumped on to fields rather than homes, to provide an opportunity for an aircraft to make a safe emergency landing and, where a crash-landing is unavoidable, to enable the pilot to avoid ground casualties by crashing into open fields.

Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would impair public safety in contravention of paragraph 95 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan consistent with national policy DHGV should be removed from the Plan and the housing growth redirected to areas of the Borough away from the open countryside in the Dunton area.

Representation 24

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant tests
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED and NOT CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL POLICY.

Summary
A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent villages.

Explanation
The Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site extends to the boundary with Basildon Council and would lie only about 200 metres away from the westernmost properties in Dunton Wayletts, a village of 250 homes. A development on the scale proposed would dominate this rural area and overwhelm the adjacent village.

The western boundary of the site is only about 500 metres from West Horndon. Whilst West Horndon is larger than Dunton it would still be dominated by a development of the size of DHGV.

DHGV would place a disproportionate number of homes in an inappropriate rural area. Such a proposal is inconsistent with paragraph 127(c) of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified and consistent with national policy DHGV should be withdrawn from the Plan and the housing growth redistributed in such a way that new developments respect adjacent settlements and are proportionate in size to those settlements.

Representation 25

Basis
This representation relates to LEGAL COMPLIANCE.

Summary
Breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.

Explanation
Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) would effectively bridge the gap between Basildon and West Horndon. Brentwood Enterprise Park would effectively bridge the gap between West Horndon and the M25. The circle of open land would thus be broken.

But a local authority's power in regard to removing land from the Green Belt is limited to altering its boundaries. Removing so much land from a Green Belt that it ceases to exist as a continuous circle would be unlawful. The reason is two-fold:

Firstly, the connotation, in the expression "Green Belt", of a complete circle of substantial width is not accidental. The original Circular 42/55 provides:
Wherever possible, a Green Belt should be several miles wide, so as to ensure an appreciable rural zone all round the built-up area concerned.

Indeed the expression used in the Greater London Plan 1944 is "Green Belt Ring", underlining that the unbroken circle is of the essence of the Metropolitan Green Belt.

Secondly, a Green Belt, once established, must not be removed: permanence is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt (paragraph 133 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

As proposed DHGV cannot therefore lawfully proceed.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan legally compliant DHGV and Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan and alternative sites found outside the gap between Basildon and the M25.



Representation 26

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The decision-making process leading to the selection of the Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) site has been casual, arbitrary, disorganised and not based on proper evidence. Evidence gathered after the decision was made, which has highlighted the unsuitability of the site for development, has simply been ignored.

Explanation
The DHGV concept has its roots in the ill-conceived Dunton Garden Suburb (DGS) proposal in early 2015.

It is obvious from the diagram of constraints on page 7 of the DGS consultation document that the Authority selected the site in ignorance of many of its constraints. Nine constraints had not been noticed. The Major Accident Hazard Pipeline running north/south through the site was not noted. The ancient woodland in the northern part of the site was not noted (only the section north of the A127 was shown). The Local Wildlife Site in the northern part of the site was not noted. The Potential Local Wildlife Site was not noted. Footpath 68 was not noted. Nightingale Lane, the byway following the ancient route between Dunton Wayletts and West Horndon, was not noted. Thorndon Park, although marked, was not noted as a SSSI. The A127 was shown as part of the Strategic Transport Network, but it is has for years been an ordinary A road under the responsibility of (at that point in its route) the County Council. The Authority even failed to note the site of the wind turbine not at the time yet constructed but for which the Authority itself had given planning permission. According to Basildon Council (see minutes of a meeting between Basildon Council, Essex County Council and the Authority on 5th June 2017) the DGS document was put together in just three weeks.

By the time the western section of DGS emerged in the 2016 draft Local Plan as DHGV, no comparative Green Belt Studies had been carried out, no up-to-date Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment was available for the Borough and there were numerous other gaps in the evidence base that should have informed the Authority's decision whether to include DHGV.


In the course of the public consultation on the 2016 draft Local Plan many questions were raised by this Association, by Basildon Council and by others about the viability of the site. It took two years for the Authority to respond to these (and other) questions by publishing a Consultation Statement. As the Consultation Statement was published at the same time as the 2018 public consultation it seems doubtful that any of these questions were taken into account when preparing the draft Plan. Indeed some of the issues were marked "TBC" (i.e. still to be considered).

Objective studies, when belatedly carried out, have disclosed the unsuitability of the DHGV site. The Green Belt study in particular has identified the site as one of the 4% worst sites in the Borough for harm to the Green Belt. Yet the Authority has continued to include the site in its plans.

The inclusion of DHGV as a major plank of the Authority's strategy has not been considered against the reasonable alternatives and based on proportionate evidence. The Local Plan has accordingly not been prepared in accordance with paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. In the new Plan the siting of areas for development should be based on an objective assessment of their suitability. The evidence revealing the impracticality and disadvantages of locating large-scale development at Dunton Hills should be properly considered, and more appropriate sites selected elsewhere in the Borough.

Representation 27

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. The Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.

Explanation
The Authority plans to site a high proportion of the Borough's housing and economic growth to a point as far away as possible from Brentwood town and other settlements in the Borough of Brentwood and as close as possible to a neighbouring borough, Basildon. In this way the infrastructure burden has been transferred to another borough in a fashion incompatible with the Duty to Co-operate.

The borough of Basildon, which the Authority sees fit to exploit, already faces insurmountable infrastructure problems.

Even without Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) and Brentwood Enterprise Park the Basildon-Southend corridor faces an overwhelming level of development over the next 20 years.

The aggregate number of homes planned by local authorities in the South Essex region for that period is approximately 90,000 - equivalent to reproducing the Borough of Basildon. Since Basildon shares its main road and rail corridor with Southend-on-Sea, housing projects east of the Basildon will have a direct impact on the infrastructure serving the Borough of Basildon.

The London Gateway Port and its associated complex are only 8 years into their 15 - 20 year completion programme. They have yet to add most of the 27,000 daily vehicle movements that will in due course burden roads such as the A128 and the A127. Southend Airport is currently handling 620,000 passengers per year, but this figure is set to rise to 2 million passengers per year. The additional 1,380,000 passengers will, apart from a very small number living within walking distance of the airport, be added to the Southend-Basildon-London road and rail links in the area.

A very large number of other commercial and industrial developments are planned that will add to the increasing number of vehicle movements along the A127 and A13.

A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex, October 2013 notes (at page 13):
The degree of infrastructure needed to absorb the scale of aggregate development in South Essex is not realistically achievable.

Road capacity
The A127 is operating close to, and in places at, capacity. It will become severely congested in the coming decade, and there is no realistic prospect of it being widened.

A127 Corridor for Growth: An Economic Plan notes the vast amount of civil engineering and other work involved in widening the A127 in both directions and the high cost associated with this. The route includes 31 bridges and other structures that would at least need to be altered. In some cases, such as the Rayleigh Weir underpass, they would need to be demolished and replaced. A large number of businesses and other properties with frontages directly on the road would need to be dealt with. The road also has 43 junctions, which would need to be redesigned and rebuilt. It would be fair to conclude from this that the widening of the A127 would be prohibitively expensive.

The Highways Agency proposed its widening in 1995, but the proposal was rejected. Significantly the Essex Transport Strategy does not include the widening of the A127. The decision in the late Eighties to invest a large sum in the Rayleigh Weir underpass without any margin for a future additional lane each way marked the point at which it was tacitly acknowledged that the A127 would never be widened.

The modest improvements to traffic flow that will result from the three junction improvements that are in the pipeline will do no more than maintain a stand-still position to offset the natural growth in traffic over the next few years. They will not deliver any net improvement.

Railway capacity
A Planning and Transport Strategy for Thames Gateway South Essex notes that both of the London-Southend railway lines suffer from overcrowding and excessive journey times. According to the Strategy the reasons for this are the limited capacity of the two-track arrangement, insufficient rolling stock and the conflicting demands of commuter and freight services.
The cost of laying parallel track in order to unblock this capacity constraint would be prohibitive: see the statement on page 13 of the Strategy.

No additional trains can be introduced because of capacity limitations west of West Ham, and the only improvements planned in the period up to 2043 are passenger train lengthening and passenger circulation improvements at Fenchurch Street Station, measures which will have only a modest impact.

Hospitals
Basildon Hospital has now reached absolute capacity and is functioning well over recommended operating capacity (85%).

Southend Hospital is operating almost at absolute capacity and well over recommended capacity.

Basildon Hospital has no long-term plan for expansion, and the adjacent site that was available for physical enlargement has been sold for housing.

Even with current patient numbers the provision of healthcare in Essex has been judged financially unsustainable by NHS England (see Essex Success Regime Progress Update 22nd January 2016), and services will have to be amalgamated and cut back.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified it should be withdrawn. It should be reformulated with a proper and objective assessment of infrastructure capacity across the Borough. The new Plan should locate housing and employment growth in a way that is sensitive to the impact on the Borough of Basildon.




E. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Employment Allocations

Representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the East Horndon employment site:-

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 11
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would ruin the setting of All Saints' Church East Horndon, a Grade I listed building.)

Representation 12
(that the developments at Dunton Hills and East Horndon would harm the setting of several Grade II listed buildings.)

Representation 21
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village development and the East Horndon employment site would be unacceptably close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest.)






F. Representations relating to Section 09: Site Allocations - Strategic Employment Allocations

Representation 1

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.

Summary
The Authority deemed the erection of temporary buildings on a small part of Codham Hall Farm (south of the A127) as inappropriate development in the Green Belt and yet is proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park on the same site occupying about ten times the area.

Explanation
In response to a planning application submitted in 2012 for temporary use of a small part (measuring about 2 hectares) of the site now proposed for Brentwood Enterprise Park as a materials, recycling and distribution facility the Authority commented:
The temporary buildings, in addition to other plant and machinery on the site, detract from the openness of the Green Belt and it is considered that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development.

The Authority is now proposing Brentwood Enterprise Park, occupying an area more than ten times greater, on a Green Belt site on which it considers even small-scale, temporary development inappropriate.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth re-allocated to a site or sites in the Borough where the development would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt.


Representation 2

Basis
This representation relates to SOUNDNESS.

Relevant test
In the following respect the Plan is NOT JUSTIFIED.


Summary
The Authority has sought to justify the location of Brentwood Enterprise Park on the basis that the site would occupy previously developed land. But the land has not been developed.

Explanation
Temporary permission was granted in 2010 for the use of a small portion (about 3 ha) of this site for the storage and distribution of excavated material. This was to enable a company to fulfil a contract to replace all the gas mains from Southend-on-Sea to East London.

A larger area has been used, again on a temporary basis, as the depot for the widening of the M25.

The position underlying these temporary uses is that the site will return to its original state. Yet in paragraph 9.205 of the Plan the Authority describes the site as previously developed land. In treating the Brentwood Enterprise Park site as developed land the Authority has based its decision on distorted evidence.

Modifications proposed
In order to make the Plan justified Brentwood Enterprise Park should be removed from the Plan, and employment growth should be re-allocated to a site elsewhere in the Borough that has genuinely already been developed or is otherwise suitable.


Further representations

The following representations set out in Section D above (in relation to Dunton Hills Garden Village) also apply to the Brentwood Enterprise Park site:

Representation 2
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village, together with Brentwood Enterprise Park and the East Horndon employment area, would further reduce the narrowest and most critical section of the Metropolitan Green Belt.)

Representation 4
(that developments in the Dunton/West Horndon area would promote the coalescence of Southend with London.)

Representation 5
(that Dunton Hills Garden Village together with the series of employment sites proposed on the A127 corridor would constitute ribbon development.)

Representation 6
(that interfering with the edges of the Green Belt as proposed would replace a strong Green Belt boundary with a weak one.)

Representation 7
(that the Dunton Hills area does not exhibit any of the four characteristics that indicate potential suitability for Green Belt boundary adjustment.)

Representation 19
(that the Dunton Hills Garden Village and Brentwood Enterprise Park developments would frustrate the objectives of the Thames Chase Community Forest.)

Representation 25
(that breaking the circle of open land around London would be unlawful.)

Representation 27
(that the Authority has cynically offloaded its housing and other needs to an edge of the Borough where a neighbouring borough will shoulder the infrastructure burden. And that the Authority has ignored the fact that the infrastructure on the Basildon-Southend corridor cannot realistically be improved.)

Footnotes:
Plan total (7752 homes) less completions, permissions and windfall (1699 homes).
Brentwood Enterprise Park (25.85 ha) plus East Horndon (5.5 ha) plus Dunton Hills Garden Village (5.5 ha) equals 36.85 ha, which represents 78% of the total allocation of 47.39 ha.
See minutes of the meeting.
At paragraph 6.4
Paragraph 5 of the letter dated 17th February 1987 from the Department of the Environment and Transport to the law firm acting for Consortium Developments Limited.
Thurrock Strategic Green Belt Assessment, Stages 1a and 1b - Final Report, January 2019.
Identified in the Assessment as parcels 03 and 12.
See minutes of that meeting.
See minutes of that meeting.
Representation about Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation, February 2015, Report No. 13-158-08B.
Representation 4833.
South Essex Joint Strategic Plan: Statement of Common Ground, June 2018.
At page 6.
ESS/40/12/BRW

Request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows: "preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)

We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)

Estimated number of jobs that Brentwood Enterprise Park can provide, based on employment density guidance, is in the region of 2,000 jobs.

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)

1. Introduction
1.1 These representations have been prepared by Strutt & Parker on behalf of St Modwen Developments Limited ("St Modwen"). They are submitted pursuant to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) Pre-submission Version of the Regulation 19 Consultation Draft Local Plan ("Draft Local Plan"), and in particular, with regard to the proposed allocation of the Land south of the A127 at Junction 29 as the proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park (BEP).
1.2 This representation sets out St Modwen's position in relation to the commercial site specific allocation ("BEP Site") which is proposed by Policy E11 in the Draft Local Plan. St Modwen has an interest in the BEP Site pursuant to a development agreement dated 23 June 2015. The freehold owner of the BEP Site is Christopher Scott Padfield.
1.3 The draft allocation proposed by Policy E11 is the single largest employment allocation within the Draft Local Plan, comprising a developable area of 25.85ha of employment land. The BEP seeks to deliver approximately 2,000 jobs in a sustainable location. The BEP Site therefore plays a particularly important role in providing a significant element of BBC's employment land requirements. The BEP site will contribute significantly to the provision of jobs to support the growth of the borough.
1.4 Representations have previously been made on behalf of S&J Padfield and St. Modwen in respect of this site throughout the plan making process and most recently to the 2018 Draft Local Plan - Preferred Site Allocations Consultation.
1.5 The BEP Site is located at M25 Junction 29 to the south of the A127. It should be noted that another employment site included within the Draft Local Plan, at Policy E10 (Codham Hall Farm), is situated to the north of the A127.
1.6 This Regulation 19 representation is focussed on the soundness of the Local Plan, as per paragraph 35 of the NPPF (i.e. whether this draft Local Plan is positively prepared; justified; effective, and consistent with national policy); and legal compliance.
1.7 The Draft Local Plan represents the proposed final version of the Local Plan for the borough, and is supported by a raft of technical studies and evidence.
1.8 Due to the binary nature of consultation at this stage (which is recognised is a function of the regulations1) where changes are suggested to ensure the Local Plan is sound and / or legally compliant, these are expressed as objections. However, we wish to stress that fundamentally, and particularly in relation to the proposed allocation of new employment land at the BEP Site, we support the Draft Local Plan.
Brentwood Enterprise Park
1.9 The BEP provides in the region of 26ha of employment land as part of a successfully masterplanned proposal within a wider site of 35.5ha, to also include ancillary landscaping works. It is intended that the proposed development at the BEP Site will provide new floorspace for a range of B-use classes, supporting jobs and employment growth in a range of sectors including (but not necessarily limited to) storage & distribution, office space, and professional services.
1.10 The following sections set out the proposals in the context of the Draft Local Plan and provide commentary on the draft policies insofar as they are relevant to the delivery of new employment floorspace, and particular in respect of the BEP Site allocation at Policy E11.
1.11 Where any concerns are raised, specific changes to the relevant policies are sought and these are indicated in the following representations in order to assist BBC in ensuring the Local Plan is sound, in terms of being positively prepared, effective, justified and consistent with national policy.
1.12 St. Modwen requests the right for its professional advisors to provide further responses on any matters appropriate to their land interests at the relevant sessions of the examination of the submitted Local Plan.
2. Policy E11 - Brentwood Enterprise Park
2.1 We wish to make clear that we support the principle of this policy and the vast majority of it is sound. However, we consider there are elements of this policy which are not effective and justified, and therefore require modification. As such, and given the binary nature of consultation at this stage, this response is expressed as an objection.
Policy E11 part C d)
2.2 We do not concur with part C d) of Policy E11. This part of the policy presently requires that the public right of way is preserved and enhanced. Whilst it is recognised that the right of way will need to be maintained, this may be through appropriate diversion if required. The policy wording presently is ambiguous in this regard and may imply that the right of way must be preserved in its current form. This could pose a risk to delivery and would not be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. Accordingly, we request that sub-paragraph 'd.' of part C of Policy E11 be amended so that it reads as follows:
"preserve, through diversion if necessary, and where appropriate enhance the existing Public Right of Way through the site".
Policy E11 part D c), d) and e)
2.3 Furthermore, we consider that the references to infrastructure requirements in sub-paragraphs c., d. and e. of part D of Policy E11 should be amended to make clear that such provision will be required where appropriate. The wording at present is overly prescriptive and lacks flexibility would not therefore be a justified and effective approach in accordance with the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF. It may not, for example, be appropriate to provide direct walking connection towards junction 29 and the western site boundary.
2.4 With regards to public transport links we consider it important to recognise the site is one of a number of growth locations and should not be responsible for provision of new transport links alone. As identified in the transport work undertaken by Atkins on behalf of St Modwen, there is potential for accessibility to be provided through private shuttle bus services for example rather than formal public transport or buses. We consider that this part of the policy is not adequately justified, and while provision for bus access and links to external walkways and cycle ways is supported in principle, the implementation of a wider strategy for sustainable travel and public transport should be delivered by the appropriate local authorities, with relevant contributions sought from developers where the legal tests relating to planning obligations (i.e. regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) are met. In this regard, we are aware of the strategy put forward for public transport in this area, as outlined in Appendix G of the Transport Assessment. This is discussed later in the representation, and the wider interaction with other allocations in the Southern Growth Corridor concerning the implementation of this strategy is supported.
2.5 We consider this part of the policy should be amended to read:
c. provide well-connected internal road layouts which allow good accessibility for bus services or sustainable transport measures where appropriate
d. potential travel planning measures and connection to new public transport links with the surrounding area; and
e. provision for walking and cycling connections within the site and to the surrounding area where appropriate
Delivery of the BEP
2.6 The landowners and St. Modwen are committed to delivering the BEP scheme and continue to actively engage with the Council on a pre-application basis, and in terms of the delivery of the development proposals generally.
2.7 The reference in Appendix 2 to the BEP Site's delivery forecasting being "Years 5-15" should be amended instead to state: "Years 1 - 15" in order to reflect the intentions of the landowners and St Modwen and in particular the potential for early delivery of a phase of development using the existing access arrangements.
2.8 Importantly, as set out later in this representation, amendments to the allocation area and policies map are also required in order to provide for flexibility with regards to access options.
2.9 Other relevant policy considerations with regards to the allocation at Policy E11 and the supporting evidence base are set out below.
Green Belt
2.10 Firstly, addressing the principle of Green Belt release, this is considered justified and consistent with national policy in the case of Policy E11; as well as being necessary to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
2.11 The NPPF states that if Green Belt boundaries are to be altered then this should be done through preparation or updating of plans (see paragraph 136), and only when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified.
2.12 The NPPF does not define what constitutes 'exceptional circumstances'. However, case law does provide assistance in this regard. In particular, the judgment of the High Court in Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council & Ors. [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) suggests (see paragraph 51 of the judgment) the following matters are relevant in the consideration of whether exceptional circumstances exist:
(i) the scale of the objectively assessed need;
(ii) constraints on supply/availability of land with the potential to accommodate sustainable development;
(iii) difficulties in achieving sustainable development without impinging on the Green Belt;
(iv) the nature and extent of the harm to the Green Belt; and
(v) the extent to which impacts on the purposes of the Green Belt may be mitigated as far as practicable.
2.13 In respect of the first three points, through the plan-making process, BBC has evidenced a substantial need for development; and there are clearly severe limitations on options to meet this need without altering the Green Belt. Similarly, options to deliver sustainable development - including through the realising the opportunities the Brentwood Enterprise Park presents - without amendments to the Green Belt boundary are very limited.
Landscaping
2.14 In addition, the allocation also seeks to deliver landscaping and groundworks to further improve the visual amenity between the site and the surrounding landscape. Given the Green Belt location of the site, we consider that provisions for landscaping within the site allocation policy is reasonably justified.
2.15 Furthermore, the Landscape Sensitivity and Landscape Capacity Study: Potential and Strategic Allocation Options report by Crestwood on behalf of BBC is supported. We note in particular Appendix L3 of the Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study finds that the site is Low Landscape Sensitivity, Low Landscape Value, with a resultant High Landscape Capacity (a high capacity site being more readily able to accommodate development).
2.16 Appendix L4, the Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), states Moderate Overall Sensitivity to Change, and considers the Site within the LCA as being Low (as L3 above). Appendix L5 summarises the capacity for development as High (the highest it can be). We agree that the site should be preferentially prioritised for development when considering effects on the landscape, and consider that the site is justified for inclusion in the plan on this basis. Further, it is considered the plan has been positively prepared in the way it has considered and identified sites that have are shown to have capacity in terms of effect on the surrounding landscape.
Economic Evidence Base
2.17 The Draft Local Plan evidence base includes input on the economic forecasts for the Council, including commentary on job growth, employment land requirements and how they relate with growth in other areas. The provision of around 2,000 jobs will undoubtedly aid in achieving the social aspect of sustainability in respect of the NPPF, providing employment opportunities to facilitate the growth of the borough.
2.18 The number of jobs and job capacity is largely derived from the estimate of employment floorspace. The Economic Futures document has estimated the number of jobs to be provided on the basis that all employment allocations come forward, while also stating that the purported numbers are indicative. Paragraph 4.1 sets out the methodology for calculating job capacity, with the report going on to state that BEP will provide a total of 4,070 new jobs. We do not consider this figure to be justified, principally because it is based on an over-assumption of the amount of office space that may be provided. The number of jobs will depend on final mix of uses however estimates based on employment density guidance indicates in the region of 2,000 jobs, due mainly to the lower estimation for the amount of office space to be provided by the scheme.
2.19 The economic evidence base supporting the quantum and location of employment land is considered in more detail in Section 5 of this representation in the context of Policy PC03 - Job Growth & Employment Land.
Transport and Access
2.20 The BEP Site allocation is ideally located to provide direct access to the strategic road network for the commercial vehicles that will be generated by the proposed business uses on the site. This will avoid the adverse impacts of commercial vehicles, including HGVs, on the local road network and local residents, that would be likely to occur if these business uses were located on an alternative site or sites that did not have direct access to the strategic road network.
2.21 As further discussed within this representation, studies have shown that access to the strategic road network for BEP which is compatible with the LTC proposals for J29 is achievable, and therefore the allocation of the BEP is not compromised by the LTC, should it be delivered.
2.22 The transport assessment undertaken to assess the potential impact of the Local Plan on the road network adopts a methodology that forecasts future demand based predominantly on historic trends, in terms of trip generation and background traffic growth. It does not fully account for the likely demand suppression that will occur due to worsening traffic congestion on the road network, i.e. constrained network capacity, which is known to be taking place and driving changes in travel behaviour including:
a. Fewer and short journeys being undertaken through more working from home, combining trips, ordering of goods and services over the internet, etc.
b. Shift to using alternative modes of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling
c. Changes in the timing of journeys to avoid the most congested period
2.23 Additionally, emerging internet based services, such as ride sharing, mobility as a service and demand responsive public transport, are likely to further change the way that people choose to travel in the future, all of which are forecast to temper or lessen future traffic growth. The transport assessment undertaken in support of the Local Plan recognises that these changes in how people are travelling are already taking place and are likely to accelerate, with evidence of this now being seen in the most recent travel statistics.
2.24 Consequently, the cumulative traffic demand on the road network forecast in the Local Plan should not be interpreted as the likely outcome of the Local Plan site allocations. Instead it should be considered as an indicator of overall travel demand to inform future policy aimed at accommodating it in a more sustainable way that avoids the 'very worst case' forecast traffic growth. The traffic forecasts in the transport assessment should not, therefore, be relied upon to inform specific requirements for road network capacity enhancement schemes, since to do so would very likely result in unnecessarily excessive and expensive schemes.
2.25 It is also noted that the trip generation forecast for BEP used in the Local Plan transport assessment is based on the site having an employment capacity of approximately 3,000 jobs, which is considered to be an over estimate. Based on industry standard employment densities for the likely mix of business uses on the BEP Site which is proposed by St Modwen, the employment capacity is forecast to be approximately 2,000 jobs. Therefore, the Local Plan transport assessment overestimates the likely trip generation for BEP by as much as 50%.
2.26 The indicative plan of potential sustainable transport linkages shown in Figure 3.14 - Southern Growth Corridor: Sustainable Transport, included in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should only be seen as an example of how the proposed development sites along the A127 could possibly be linked by a package of sustainable transport measures. It should not be seen as representing the specific measures that will be implemented. This is because further detailed evaluation is required to establish if they represent the most appropriate proposals, taking account of the wide range of sustainable transport measures that could be adopted by the different sites, and to confirm their deliverability (recent discussions with other parties involved with land along the A127 have mentioned the use of compulsory purchase powers, which can be a costly and lengthy process).
2.27 While recent engagement with David Ubaka Placemakers and other stakeholders in the Southern Growth Corridor has shed further light on the proposed sustainable transport measures, there is considered to be more work required before a detailed solution is available. It should therefore be recognised that the package of sustainable transport measures that will be implemented for the sites along the Southern Growth Corridor may ultimately be different to those presented in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The IDP itself is acknowledged to be a 'live' working document (see paragraph 1.2) and hence the final package of sustainable transport measures will be agreed at the planning application stage for the relevant development sites along the Southern Growth Corridor.
2.28 Fundamentally however, the allocation of sites including BEP, Childerditch Industrial Estate, West Horndon and DHGV along the A127 all make a strong business case for the implementation of a robust and efficient package of sustainable transport measures.
Lower Thames Crossing & Additional Land Required for Access
2.29 The BEP Site benefits from existing access to M25 junction 29 that can provide for a first phase of development and, in enhanced form, for access on a permanent basis should the Lower Thames Crossing not proceed.
2.30 Should the Lower Thames Crossing come forward, it is noted that latest proposals include potential slip roads at junction 29. This includes one running from the A127 westbound onto the M25 southbound at junction 29. The current proposals for the LTC would therefore conflict with both the existing and currently proposed access arrangements for the BEP.
2.31 Extensive liaison has been undertaken and will continue to be undertaken with representatives from Lower Thames Crossing, Highways England, Essex County Council, Peter Brett Associates and all other relevant parties. The Highways England LTC team have confirmed their commitment to proactively find solutions to allow BEP and the LTC to come forward in a manner which is mutually acceptable.
2.32 Key to this is an acknowledgement that certain land around junction 29 and the A127 will likely be needed for transport works should the LTC project proceed as currently envisaged. Accordingly, such land should be acknowledged in the Local Plan as being released from the Green Belt should it be required to provide works to allow for access to the BEP Site.
2.33 The plan at Appendix B shows the additional land that may be necessary to be released from the Green Belt in order for it to be developed for transport works to facilitate access to the BEP Site. Such release would only take effect if the land was needed for transport works to deliver access to the BEP Site.
2.34 At present, the options set out in Appendix B include land to facilitate access to junction 29, or to facilitate access to the BEP Site from the B186/Warley Street. This will likely include additional land to the north of the A127 to allow for potential access via junction 29 linking via an improved bridge, as well as land to the east including around the A127/B186 junction to allow for potential junction and slip road improvements. This includes land to the south along Warley Street to allow for potential realignment of the road / roundabout to provide access to the site.
2.35 Policy E11 must therefore be amended to acknowledge the above access options and to provide for the land to be released from the Green Belt for such purposes should that be required.
2.36 It is proposed that the policy wording seeks to ensure that works on this land are kept to the minimum necessary to facilitate the required access and highway improvements. It should also be noted that access infrastructure is likely to be at grade (or below) existing levels and would not add any significant volume/built structures to the land, and therefore any impact on openness would therefore be limited.
2.37 The need to maintain the possibility of achieving safe, satisfactory access arrangements to the largest employment land allocation in the borough in the context of the LTC is considered an exceptional circumstance, and therefore warrants this additional land to be removed from the Green Belt if required.
2.38 Further, Paragraph 146 of the NPPF sets out the forms of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided the preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes, at point c), local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location.
2.39 This approach has been used in the nearby East Herts District, where the recently adopted East Herts District Plan 2018 found that in order to provide necessary highway capacity to meet the wider needs of existing residents and businesses, as well as for future growth, the connectivity over the River Stort requires significant improving. In accordance with the NPPF, the Council considered it appropriate for new crossings to be located across Green Belt land, and as a result of the adopted plan, East Herts District Council are working with other LPAs and Authorities to explore landownership associated with the delivery of additional transport capacity, and also reviewed the use of CPO powers if deemed necessary. Whilst this approach could also be adopted in Brentwood there is a need for the Local Plan to provide for release of land from the Green Belt for access should this be required.
2.40 It is additionally noted the Brentwood IDP indicates the potential implementation of sustainable transport measures around the site. The release and identification of such land on the proposals map is therefore an important requirement for the Local Plan.
2.41 In order to achieve the above, we request that the first paragraph of Policy E11 is amended to read as follows:
"Land south east of M25 Junction 29, as shown on Appendix 2, is allocated to provide high quality employment development and a significant number of jobs.
In addition, the areas of land (shown on the plan at Appendix 2) shall be released from the Green Belt for works to provide access to the site should this be necessary. The final extent of the land that is released for such works shall be identified in a planning application and shall be kept to the minimum necessary to provide an appropriate and safe access to the Brentwood Enterprise Park Site along with any associated highway and infrastructure works.
Development proposals for the Brentwood Enterprise Park site should consider the following:"
2.42 The plan at Appendix 2 to the Draft Local Plan will need to be updated to be in line with the plan attached at Appendix B of these representations.
3. Section 3 Spatial Strategy, Vision and Strategic Objectives
SO1: Manage Growth Sustainably
3.1 We support strategic objective SO1. In order for the Local Plan to be sound, it is essential that it ensures the borough's growth is managed, and in a sustainable manner. As per the NPPF (paragraph 8), achieving sustainable development means pursuing environmental, social and economic objectives; recognising these objectives are interdependent and mutually supportive. It is critical that these objectives are carried forward into the detailed policies and allocations of the Local Plan.
SO3: Deliver Sustainable Communities with Diverse Economic & Social-cultural Opportunities for All
3.2 We support strategic objective SO3. In particular, we welcome its recognition of the importance of the economic climate to the borough's communities. We support the recognition of the importance of identifying opportunities for economic growth - the NPPF is clear on the need for Local Plans to look to realise opportunities for development.
3.3 Also set out in the Strategic Objectives section is the reasoning behind the identified key growth areas. We broadly support the identified key growth areas and the strategy, which seeks to deliver growth along the established transport corridors of the A127 and A12. Paragraph 3.21 part b) sets out the proposals for delivering employment growth in the M25/A127 areas.
Growth Areas
3.4 We support the identification of the opportunity to provide a strategic employment allocation at the BEP Site. Such an approach accords with the Draft Local Plan's strategic objectives pertaining to the identification of economic growth opportunities, and thereby assists in ensuring this objective is effective. The BEP would deliver significant economic, social and environmental benefits, allowing it to come forward as a sustainable growth location to support the growth of the borough.
3.5 Fundamentally, the provision of employment land provides job opportunities and space to deliver economic growth not just in Brentwood, but throughout the region. The well-connected highway network and provisions for sustainable transport links will ensure that the BEP Site provides employment space that will make best use of its location, set within easy reach of London, DP World, the Dartford Crossing and other notable businesses and employment centres. It is recognised in the plan that other proposed infrastructure projects, such as the Lower Thames Crossing, are most beneficial to distributors and companies that are of a certain scale, who will require larger spaces and facilities from which to run their businesses. As such, employment proposals such as BEP are required not just to provide economic growth and opportunity in their own right, but also to harness the opportunities granted by future infrastructure.
3.6 The provision of jobs and employment to support the borough's population is key and the social benefits of the BEP development would principally derive from the number of jobs provided by the development, enabling future and existing residents of the borough to live and work within the locality. It is intended that a planning application will be progressed immediately and delivery on site can come forward over the next 1-15-year period, potentially providing several years' worth of construction jobs and contracts in the construction sector alone.
3.7 Currently, St. Modwen's strategy continues to be for a planning application to be prepared for submission alongside the examination in 2019, targeting determination following receipt of the Inspector's Report and adoption of the Local Plan. This pro-active approach, if reflected in an amendment to the BEP Site's delivery forecast, will lead to an effective plan that can allow for the site to come forward expediently to address the borough's employment land needs.
3.8 The site is a sustainable location for development for employment uses owing to its location adjacent to the strategic highway network. Supporting large-scale employment growth here negates the need for the delivery of further employment uses in less sustainable and less suitable locations.
Figure 3.1 - Key Diagram
3.9 The identification of an employment-led development in the south-west of the borough is supported. Such a location is well-connected to the strategic highway network, which as set out above, facilitates connections to other key employment centres. As such, the proposed approach in this regard is justified. The allocation of the BEP Site for new employment development is clearly very much consistent with national policy; and will make a significant contribution to ensuring the Local Plan is positively prepared. Indeed, if the Key Diagram were not to identify and promote realisation of such an opportunity, we consider that such an approach could not be consistent with national policy or justified.
4. Section 5 - Transport and Connectivity
4.1 Successful delivery of the allocated development within the growth areas requires a grounded appreciation of the transport issues along the various corridors. Section 5 of the Draft Local Plan covers how the Plan seeks to develop a resilient built environment. Page 92 sets out the Transport and Connectivity related policies.
4.2 We support part C of Policy BE11: Strategic Transport Infrastructure, which sets out how the Council will continue to liaise with Highways Authorities and other key stakeholders to ensure the necessary improvements to ensure highway infrastructure capacity is maintained. We welcome BBC's proactive approach in this respect.
4.3 We support the wording in Paragraph 5.105 relating to the South Brentwood Growth Corridor, particularly the intent for BBC to work proactively with developers and stakeholders along the A127. We recognise the need to work collaboratively to address any transport impacts the BEP development may have on the highway network.
4.4 We concur with paragraph 5.107, which raises doubt on the scale and timelines associated with the impacts of the proposed Lower Thames Crossing. Having liaised extensively with the LTC teams, we are aware of the proposals and their relationship with the Brentwood Enterprise Park. We can confirm that the LTC teams and ourselves are committed to the realisation of both projects in a mutually acceptable manner and discussions are on-going in this regard.
4.5 Policy BE13 should acknowledge that site specific policies provide details of how sustainable travel opportunities will be achieved in respect of each site. Accordingly, Policy BE13 should be amended so that it is made clear that it does not have the effect of imposing any requirements on the allocated sites that are in addition to those set out in the individual site allocation policies.
5. Section 7 - Prosperous Communities
5.1 The Economic Aims and Strategy priorities set out within Section 7.3 are supported. We consider these will help facilitate sustainable development, which is of course required to ensure the Local Plan is sound.
5.2 The Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide a range of employment types in a sustainable location. The proposals have been designed to reflect the need for a greater proportion of B-type use classes, supporting jobs in a range of industries that will make the most of the site's location adjacent to an established highways network, fundamentally meeting Economic Aim A1.
5.3 The scheme will provide in the region of 2,000 jobs on an area that makes up around 54% of the land identified for employment use within the Draft Local Plan. Economic Aim E2 seeks the provision of high value, diverse employment uses that will provide a significant number of high skilled and quality jobs.
PC02: Job Growth and Employment Land
5.4 The Draft Local Plan has as part of its evidence base a document entitled 'Brentwood Economic Futures 2013-2033', prepared by Lichfields, which sets out the economic evidence base in support of the Local Plan. We have reviewed the available economic evidence and also considered the conclusions drawn from that document, in particular how it determines the amount of employment land required to support the needs of the borough throughout the next plan period.
5.5 Principally, we have some reservations as to the quantum of employment land that is proposed under the various scenarios considered as part of the study. While each of the scenarios has considered relevant factors conducive to understanding the amount of employment land required, we consider that the Council should be considering the Experian based forecasts set out under Scenario A as a minimum requirement of employment land. The other scenarios do not provide an adequately robust assessment of the land required to support the necessary employment growth.
5.6 In terms of the quantum discussed within the evidence base, the Local Plan forecasts a need between 20.3 ha (Scenario A) and 8.1 ha (Scenario D) for land to be used for B-class employment uses. The Plan seeks to allocate an additional 47.4ha (with BEP accounting for around 55% of this total allocation), allowing for the compensation of the loss of 21.ha of current employment land to other uses. While it is positive that the Council has sought to address the loss of existing land, while also seeking to provide over and above the highest amount required by the Scenario A (Experian figures generated using SHMA data), we would consider the Council could be more proactive by allowing for a greater buffer beyond the requirement of land set out under Scenario A. Such a buffer would ensure flexibility, and therefore effectiveness, should any of the smaller site allocations not be delivered within the timescales envisaged.
5.7 The site's location on the outskirts of London is also considered to assist in addressing the trend for the reduction in B-class land uses within the capital. Situated adjacent to the M25 and A127, the site presents an attractive destination for London firms requiring B1c/B2 and B8 floorspace. Elsewhere in Brentwood, this ability to capitalise on the migration of such employment uses from London is not being realised, as the supply of land for industrial uses is below any of the closest competing Boroughs (Brentwood's supply of industrial land was just 205,000 sq m in 2015/16). In order to attract industrial employers and capture employment opportunities migrating from London, sites like Brentwood Enterprise Park are required to provide the required space and land uses.
5.8 Therefore, not only is BEP the foremost important asset for the Borough in terms of employment land, but especially as an option for the development of B1c, B2, and B8. The loss of the land allocation at BEP would seriously impede the borough's ability to grow in the future, and to take advantage of likely future geographical changes in location and demand for B-class employment uses.
5.9 When further considering and allocations required to deliver the number of jobs to be provided, it is critical that the Local Plan:
a) Provides for sufficient flexibility to be able to respond to rapid change (as required by paragraph 11 of the NPPF); and
b) Does so in a manner that ensures the Green Belt boundary will not need to be reviewed before the end of the plan period (paragraph 136 of the NPPF).
5.10 In respect of this, it must be recognised that the borough is predominantly Green Belt. The Council has evidenced that the current Green Belt boundaries are required to be amended by the new Local Plan (which is appropriate, as per paragraph 136 of the NPPF). In reviewing the Green Belt boundaries at this juncture, it is important that the Council is confident that the amended Green Belt will not have to be altered again in five years, when the Local Plan is required to be reviewed. As such, in considering the scale of land to be allocated to meet development needs through this Local Plan, it is important that a precautionary approach is taken so that the amount of land that is released from the Green Belt is sufficient to ensure delivery of the sites that are allocated in the Local Plan for development.
5.11 We therefore object to Policy PC02, on the basis that at the very least it should be amended such that land allocations are expressed as minimums. If Policy PC02 is amended to state that the allocation of 47.39 ha of new employment land is a minimum this will ensure that the plan is positively prepared, effective and consistent with national policy.
7.19 and 7.20 Employment Land Provision
5.12 Having regard to our comments in respect of Policy PC02 - the need to ensure flexibility; and the need to ensure the revised Green Belt boundary will be capable of enduring beyond the plan period - the Local Plan must use the higher growth forecasts and plan accordingly. In addition, it is important that the Council is satisfied the proposed allocation of employment land is sufficient in respect of the requirements outlined in our response to Policy PC02 regarding the need for both flexibility and for the Green Belt to be able to endure during the plan period.
Policy PC03: Employment Land Allocations
5.13 Policy PC03 sets out a number of considerations which are intended to relate to existing and proposed employment sites identified in Figure 7.6. Brentwood Enterprise Park is listed as one such site in Figure 7.6 of the Draft Local Plan.
5.14 The Draft Local Plan also proposes a specific site allocation policy for the BEP, (Policy E11).
5.15 Policy PC03 contains a prescriptive list of the circumstances when non B-class uses will be permitted in respect of "Redevelopment or change of use of business, office, general industry and distribution". Given that Policy E11 refers to the possibility of development for uses other than B-class uses i.e. for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" we assume this part of Policy PC03 relates only to existing employment sites. However, in order for the policy to be effective, the policy should be amended so that the opening paragraph reads as follows:
"Within those areas allocated for general employment and office development, set out in Figure 7.6 and on the Brentwood Policies Map, the Council will seek to achieve and retain a wide range of employment opportunities. Further details in this regard are set out in the individual site allocation policies.
In relation to existing employment sites redevelopment for non B-class uses will only be permitted where:"
Paragraph 7.23 - b) part i)
5.16 The reference to BEP within the context of opportunities for growth within the South Brentwood Growth Corridor is welcomed and supported. However, in our view the reference to "redeveloping brownfield land" in sub-paragraph (b)(i) is unnecessary given that the BEP Site has been assessed by the Council and considered to be suitable for strategic employment development. Accordingly, for purposes of clarity we request that sub-paragraph b. i. is reworded to read as follows: "developing land at Brentwood Enterprise Park (see Policy E11)". This would also correct the typographical error of "Site E01" which should instead refer to E11.
Paragraph 7.25
5.17 The NPPF calls for Local Plans to make use of development opportunities. The recognition that the Lower Thames Crossing represents an opportunity which Brentwood Enterprise Park will realise is supported, as this is consistent with relevant national planning policy.
PC05 - Replicates Site Specific policies
5.18 As currently worded, the Draft Local Plan is ambiguous as to whether this policy is intended to apply to proposed as well as existing employment land. If it is intended to apply to new allocations, then similar concerns to those that we expressed in relation to policy PC03 also apply here. To ensure the Local Plan is effective, to avoid inconsistency, and so that it is clear how a decision maker should react to development proposes, Policy PC05 should be amended to make clear it does not apply to the new employment site allocations because these policies have (as applicable) clear 'Development Principles' and 'Infrastructure Requirements'.
6. Section 8 - Natural Environment
NE08 - Lighting Restrictions
6.1 We support what we have inferred is the intended objective of this policy: to ensure lighting schemes are appropriate for the use to which they are associated, and potential harm arising from lighting schemes is minimised. In respect of policy BE08 A a) we suggest that, order to provide greater clarity as to how a decision maker should react to development proposals, it is acknowledged that employment land may well require the provision of lighting for security and operational purposes.
Policy NE9: Green Belt
6.2 It is considered necessary (in respect of the effectiveness of the Local Plan and compliance with the NPPF, in relation to the need to ensure policies are not ambiguous) that the Local Plan makes clear where land is being removed from the Green Belt (such as in respect of the allocation contained in Policy E11). It is suggested that text is added to this policy to clarify that the Local Plan is altering the Green Belt boundaries.
Policy NE13: Site Allocations in the Green Belt
6.3 The policy should be amended to provide clarity that sites are being removed to enable employment needs to be met, in addition to housing. It should be recognised that the development of employment uses has intrinsic community benefits, with resultant social and economic gains.
Potential additional land required for access to Brentwood Enterprise Park
6.4 As covered in elsewhere in our representation, owing to factors arising from the proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), it is considered that additional land may need to be released from the Green Belt in order to ensure appropriate access to the BEP Site can be provided.
7. Strategic Environmental Assessment / Sustainability Appraisal
7.1 The Draft Local Plan is accompanied by a Sustainability Appraisal that has been prepared by AECOM, which assesses all sites put forward against a number of criteria in order to ascertain an overview of the sustainability credentials of a site or location. The SA concludes that the BEP Site is suitable for the intended proposals when considered on its own merits and when considered against other options within the borough.
7.2 Turning to the more specific aspects of the proposed allocation, the SA finds that the site scores moderately well when considered against other options for growth put forward at the various stages of plan preparation. While we agree with the allocation, and consider that the SA supports the sustainability of the site location, we consider that a number of the assessed criteria could be more accurately represented.
7.3 The SA broadly supports the inclusion of the Brentwood Enterprise Park within the plan, stating all sites will have good or excellent access onto the strategic highway network, and Brentwood Enterprise Park will provide an opportunity for high-end modern premises, along with appropriate ancillary uses, e.g. a hotel.
7.4 Table C from the Sustainability Appraisal is included above, showing how the BEP site (ref 101Aii) has been assessed against the criteria set out within the plan. It is noted that the site has been scored low in respect of relationship to Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient woodland and also with regard to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs).
7.5 It is noted that the criteria in Table B of the SA state that the thresholds have been selected on the basis that County Wildlife Sides and Ancient Semi Natural Woodlands have a relatively low sensitivity. However, the proposed allocation at Brentwood Enterprise Park is adjacent to the Hobbs Hole, and does not directly intersect with it. While a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard, it is important to note that the proposed scheme also provide opportunities for the enhancement of the Hobbs Hole site through the provision of effective landscaping schemes and ecological management.
7.6 The criteria set out in Table B stipulates that a low score is given to sites in or adjacent to an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), and a medium score will be given if located within a kilometre of an AQMA. Despite not satisfying either of these criteria, the site has scored low in respect of its effect on Air Quality Management Areas. The Assessment justifies this, noting that growth along the A127 corridor can be expected to lead to increased traffic in the Brentwood town centre Air Quality Management Area, which is located some 5km to the north.
7.7 The SA does however follow this up by stating that "there is some uncertainty in respect of this conclusion, given the potential to deliver significant upgrades to walking/cycling and public transport infrastructure through a focus at DHGV, as well as to deliver employment and a local centre (to include a secondary school) on-site." We support this view, and concur that the growth locations identified in the southern corridor cumulatively make a strong business case for the implementation of sustainable transport linkages and necessary infrastructure that will ultimately lessen the perceived effect on the nearest AQMAs. As such, we feel that a medium score would be more appropriate in this regard.
7.8 Finally, on the SA, it is considered to be ineffective to judge the merits of a site for employment use with regard to its proximity to services such as a GP, Primary School and Secondary School. While these services may be considered key to the delivery of successful residential allocations, they are not relevant indicators of sustainability of potential employment sites. The site has been scored low in all three aspects, due to the distance it is located from these services, and we also consider that these scores should be 'NA'.
7.9 As such, the current SA may suggest the proposed BEP is less sustainable than it actually is and this references should be updated. However, it is also relevant to note that the SA is still considered this site as a merited allocation despite this.
8. Summary
8.1 This representation has considered the Brentwood Borough Council Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan against the test of soundness as set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF, with specific reference made to the allocation of land for the development of the Brentwood Enterprise Park scheme.
8.2 The representation sets out how the plan, whilst fundamentally sound, is not completely justified or effective with regard to ensuring the adequate delivery of sufficient employment land to support the planned growth of the borough. Furthermore, references to certain of the draft policies and supporting evidence show that the plan should be amended to be more positively prepared and consistent with National Planning Policy.
8.3 Proposed modifications to the plan to address these matters are set out including in relation to Policy E11.
8.4 We request that we be invited to attend the relevant sessions of the forthcoming examination hearings in order that we can provide the Inspector with further oral evidence and explanation in support of these representations.
Appendix A - Letter from Highways England regarding Lower Thames Crossing
Appendix B - Potential land required for access solutions (ref: 5183535-ATK-ZZ-DR-D-0001)