MM10
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29622
Received: 08/11/2021
Respondent: Essex County Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
2.Not Justified
3.Not Effective
4.Not Consistent with National Policy
ECC as the highway and transportation authority considers that the review policy MG06 gives Brentwood Borough Council the opportunity to address not only the highways and transportation matters raised by National Highways, but also those matters raised by ECC, as set out in Hearing Statement F76A (its response to F65 the latest published Transport Assessment) and reiterated at the EIP. In particular the summaries set out in Paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9 of F76A.
Criterion D of Policy MG06 should be modified to explicitly reflect this position.
2. Not Justified
3. Not Effective
4. Not Consistent with National Policy
ECC as the highway and transportation authority considers that the review policy MG06 gives Brentwood Borough Council the opportunity to address not only the highways and transportation matters raised by National Highways, but also those matters raised by ECC, as set out in Hearing Statement F76A (its response to F65 the latest published Transport Assessment) and reiterated at the EIP. In particular the summaries set out in Paragraphs 1.8 and 1.9 of F76A (set out below).
ECC is generally satisfied with regard to the assumptions underpinning the modelling approach, its outputs in terms of reasonable traffic flows, and the infrastructure and junction mitigation measures identified as necessary. However, there are some junctions where traffic flows appear to have been underestimated and therefore the impacts of Local Plan growth may also be understated. This includes the junctions along Brook Street between the M25 and Brentwood Town Centre. More robust analysis will therefore be required through the planning application process for relevant sites, which in turn could necessitate additional infrastructure improvements.
It is noted that a comprehensive and deliverable package of sustainable transportation interventions is likely to be required to reduce Local Plan impacts where a physical infrastructure improvement is not possible or viable. BBC are seeking to develop a sustainable transport strategy which will provide greater detail. ECC as the local highway and transportation authority would be involved with this process.
Criterion D of Policy MG06 should be modified to explicitly reflect this position.
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29824
Received: 24/11/2021
Respondent: M Scott Properties Ltd
Agent: M Scott Properties Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Concerned that there are no safeguards in place in MG06 to guarantee the review of the Plan being undertaken within the proposed timescales, or at all. Policy MG06 does not specify a timeframe for adoption of the Local Plan review, and there is nothing within the suggested wording that would require it to be progressed beyond submission. In addition, and whilst we agree it is necessary to specify a timeframe of 28 months for a Local Plan review to be submitted, we question whether this is achievable without Policy MG06 providing a clearer steer.
It is clear that the submitted Local Plan is unsound, and modifications to it are necessary such that is capable of being found sound.
In order for the Local Plan to be capable of being sound, as per the NPPF, it must contain strategic policies that address a minimum of 15 years from adoption. Such strategic policies should ensure development needs over a minimum of 15 years will be met, as a minimum.
The submitted Local Plan clearly fails to meet this express requirement of the NPPF.
MM10 proposes the introduction of a new policy (Policy MG06) which seek to resolve this flaw in the submitted Local Plan by requiring an immediate review of the Plan upon its adoption.
It should be noted that it is a substantial defect in the submitted Local Plan that the introduction of Policy MG06 seeks to address. The NPPF does not suggest that there are circumstances in which a Plan may address a shorter period than 15 years, and places great emphasis on ensuring development needs are met in full. As such, we consider it critical that the policy is effective and will ensure development needs do not go unmet.
Whilst we support the inclusion of Policy MG06 as a pragmatic response to addressing this issue, we consider that it is critical that the policy ensures that a review of the Local Plan is progressed and adopted. We do not consider that, as currently proposed to be worded, Policy MG06 achieves this.
Additional supporting text should be included which makes reference to the basis on which sites will be identified for allocation as part of the review. This should refer to the sites within the SHLAA that were assessed as being suitable, available and achievable but which were rejected on questionable grounds, including due to their location within the Green Belt.
We have concerns that there are no safeguards in place to guarantee the review of the Plan being undertaken within the proposed timescales, or at all. As such, and in order to ensure the proposed approach will be effective, suitable wording should be incorporated which states that failure to review the Plan within the specified timescales will be deemed a significant factor in determining whether Very Special Circumstances exist for planning applications on sites within the Green Belt.
We also note that Policy MG06 does not specify a timeframe for adoption of the Local Plan review, and there is nothing within the suggested wording that would require it to be progressed beyond submission.
In addition, and whilst we agree it is necessary to specify a timeframe of 28 months for a Local Plan review to be submitted, we question whether this is achievable without Policy MG06 providing a clearer steer.
Appendix V to the Local Plan Final Sustainability Appraisal Report (January 2019) contains a list of ‘village omission sites’ which identifies whether any should be taken forward for further analysis. These sites were identified as deliverable or developable, but not considered further as potential allocations as they did not conform to the Plan’s spatial strategy.
The inclusion of suitable wording would set out the basis on which sites will be identified for allocation within the review, and provide a clear steer to decision makers when approaching the site allocation process. This will also enable the ambitious timescales for the review to be met, given such sites have already been assessed in detail.
Additional wording should also be included within Policy MG06 which states that failure to undertake the review within the specific timescales would be deemed a significant factor in determining whether Very Special Circumstances exist for proposed development sites within the Green Belt.
Additional supporting text should be included which refers to omission sites, assessed as suitable, available and achievable within the Plan’s evidence base as the starting point for identifying site allocations.
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29829
Received: 25/11/2021
Respondent: Tesco Stores Limited
Agent: GL Hearn
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Policy MG06 ‘Local Plan Review’ will need to include ‘flexibility’ which could enable certain sites to come forward for development if in the event BBC does not (1) published a Regulation 18 Public Consultation Draft Local Plan Review within 12 months of adoption and/or (2) submit Regulation 19 Draft Local Plan Review to the Secretary of State within 24 months of adoption.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29832
Received: 25/11/2021
Respondent: MM Properties Ltd
Agent: Savills UK
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Objects to Main Modification MM10 as an immediate partial review of the Plan does not include a commitment to meet the full new employment land need.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29869
Received: 25/11/2021
Respondent: Land North of Shenfield Developer Group
Number of people: 4
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Concerns that there is a risk of development being delayed on the basis of transport improvements being determined only at the point of reviewing the Local Plan.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29870
Received: 25/11/2021
Respondent: Land North of Shenfield Developer Group
Number of people: 4
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Concerned that the proposed policy has just delayed the policy considerations and not necessarily dealt with National Highways actual concerns about the M25 junctions. It is assumed that BBC reached an agreement with National Highways and the Local Plan examination Inspectors on the wording of MG06, and the consequent delay in consideration of the M25 junction issues. The Developer group seeks assurance that this agreement with National Highways will still hold whilst the planning applications for Land north of Shenfield are being considered and will not therefore, attract an objection by National Highways on the grounds that this matter has not been resolved at this stage.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29887
Received: 26/11/2021
Respondent: GL Hearn
Agent: GL Hearn
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
There is a risk of the Council not meeting its own commitment to a partial review by a set date, which needs to be mitigated if the Council adopts a new Plan without a 5YHS. It would be wholly unacceptable for Brentwood Council not to submit a Reg19 Draft Local Plan Review within the stated timescale when there are suitable sites known to the Council to be deliverable and available for allocation and development.
See attached.
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29908
Received: 26/11/2021
Respondent: U+I Group
Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
MM10 is now an appropriate modification in the
situation that the current Local Plan’s housing land supply deficiencies are unlikely to be resolved at present. MM10 is therefore acceptable with the proviso that the Local Plan Inspectors’ ensure that the commitment to the immediate Plan Review is effectively ‘hard wired’ into the policy. The supporting justification text must therefore also include a specific and detailed timetable (also reflected in a separate new Local Development Schedule) for the preparation of the Plan Review.
See attached.
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30027
Received: 29/11/2021
Respondent: Hallam Land Management Ltd
Agent: Marrons Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
The Framework requires (paragraph 61) that strategic policies should (in addition to the Local Housing Need figure) take into account any unmet needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas when establishing the amount of housing to be planned for. For the partial review to exclude any consideration of unmet needs is contrary to national policy.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30028
Received: 29/11/2021
Respondent: Hallam Land Management Ltd
Agent: Marrons Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
The proposal to submit the partial review for Examination within 28 months is not justified by any evidence.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30029
Received: 29/11/2021
Respondent: Hallam Land Management Ltd
Agent: Marrons Planning
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
If the Plan is to be found sound on the basis that there is to be a partial review to address its ‘unsoundness’, the policy needs to be worded in a way that requires the Council to deliver the partial review and address the deficiency in its soundness. The policy is currently worded on the basis that the Council will do a partial review. The policy should be worded on the basis of what happens if the Council do not do a partial review. If the review is not submitted for Examination by the agreed date, then the Plan should be deemed ‘out-of-date’ for the purposes of decision-taking.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30151
Received: 30/11/2021
Respondent: Clearbrook Group Plc
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Policy MG06 is not sufficiently robust to ensure that development needs will be met in the longer term, and further modifications are required to ensure the BLP is capable of being sound.
There must be a reasonable level of certainty that the partial review of the plan will take place. We do not consider the policy as presently worded provides sufficient certainty. The proposed wording does not compel the Council to progress the Local Plan review beyond submission and to adoption.
It is also not clear what will happen in the event that any of the objectives listed in Policy MG06 are not met. Due to the Borough being predominantly Green Belt failure to progress a Local Plan review is highly likely to result in development needs going unmet.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30152
Received: 30/11/2021
Respondent: Turn2us
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Policy MG06 is not sufficiently robust to ensure that development needs will be met in the longer term, and further modifications are required to ensure the BLP is capable of being sound.
There must be a reasonable level of certainty that the partial review of the plan will take place. We do not consider the policy as presently worded provides sufficient certainty. The proposed wording does not compel the Council to progress the Local Plan review beyond submission and to adoption.
It is also not clear what will happen in the event that any of the objectives listed in Policy MG06 are not met. Due to the Borough being predominantly Green Belt failure to progress a Local Plan review is highly likely to result in development needs going unmet.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30161
Received: 30/11/2021
Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Consider it is imperative that the Local Plan Review should consider not simply additional housing needs, but also any additional employment land that may be required to support these. Failure to do so would risk an imbalance between housing and employment provision, and the Local Plan review resulting in an unsustainable strategy for growth.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30274
Received: 02/12/2021
Respondent: EA Strategic Land LLP
Agent: Iceni Projects Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Do not support the principle of an early review. An early review will not remedy the issue shortfall of supply early in the plan period as it will not result in additional sites being allocated for several years.
Given the permanence of the Green Belt boundaries and the emphasis at paragraph 140 of the NPPF on these boundaries enduring beyond the Plan period, we consider it would be more appropriate to allocate additional sites now rather than postponing this to an updated version of the Plan.
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30275
Received: 02/12/2021
Respondent: EA Strategic Land LLP
Agent: Iceni Projects Limited
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Notwithstanding objections to the principle of an early review, if the Inspectors were minded to deem the plan sound on the basis of an early review, we have further comments on the suggesting wording.
Object to the 28 month period identified for submission of the review. Agree that any review should commence immediately following adoption, unclear why 28 months has been specified, and what assumptions this is based on. Consider that a 24 month period would be appropriate.
The Green Belt review should not only undertake an assessment of individual parcels against the purposes of Green Belt but also consider the suitability of releasing particular sites from the Green Belt in order to meet the identified need.
The Policy is not clear on what would happen in the event that the review is not prepared and submitted for examination in accordance with the timescales set out in the first paragraph of the policy. Nothing is mentioned in the monitoring framework to this effect either
See attached
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30840
Received: 06/01/2022
Respondent: National Highways
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Our requirements moving forward are to assess each planning proposal on an individual basis under a situation of either no adopted Local Plan or an adopted Plan subject to immediate review. Mitigation requirements will be considered on an individual or if possible pooled basis depending upon the timing and location of individual applications. Any subsequent Local Plan (if an adopted Plan does not exist) or Local Plan review will then need to assess the impacts of all non-consented development at the time of submission and examination in public, including any non-consented development as part of an adopted Plan if applicable and suitable mitigation will be required for all non-consented development. We feel it important to make this point to clarify our position and avoid any uncertainty in future on the status of any Local Plan related development and the mitigation requirements of the M25 and A12 in Brentwood.
Further to recent correspondences, please find below our comments on the Local Plan Potential Main Modifications.
As mentioned during the Local Plan Examination hearings on 27 and 28 July 2021, we would be content for the Plan to be adopted subject to an immediate review. On 27 July we stated that this would enable Brentwood Borough Council to prepare an up to date transport assessment covering impacts on the strategic road network (M25 and A12 outside London) that had in certain respects been hampered by the way existing evidence had been used guided by examination timescales.
As mentioned during the hearing of 28 July, should the Local Plan be adopted based upon existing incomplete evidence and mitigation for the M25 and A12 in Brentwood, National Highways (then Highways England) would still need to engage in the planning process to assess the impacts of each planning application coming forward and secure mitigation as necessary. This is because ordinarily when a Local Plan is adopted all required mitigation is identified for the Plan as a whole, negating the need for full and detailed assessment of subsequent planning applications covered by the full Plan as stated in DfT Circular 02/2013 Paragraph 21.
Bearing these points in mind and the current position of the proposed Local Plan our requirements moving forward are to assess each planning proposal on an individual basis under a situation of either no adopted Local Plan or an adopted Plan subject to immediate review. Mitigation requirements will be considered on an individual or if possible pooled basis depending upon the timing and location of individual applications. Any subsequent Local Plan (if an adopted Plan does not exist) or Local Plan review will then need to assess the impacts of all non-consented development at the time of submission and examination in public, including any non-consented development as part of an adopted Plan if applicable and suitable mitigation will be required for all non-consented development. We feel it important to make this point to clarify our position and avoid any uncertainty in future on the status of any Local Plan related development and the mitigation requirements of the M25 and A12 in Brentwood.
Therefore, our comments specific to the Schedule of Potential Main Modifications are as follows
Policy MG06: Local Plan Review
Paragraph D should be modified to state “a review of transport and highway issues to cater for all local plan growth including all growth without an existing planning permission up to the end of the review period in consultation with National Highways…”.
MM22 Strategic Policy BE08: Strategic Transport Infrastructure
Paragraph C should be modified to state “ improvements to the highway network as deemed necessary by transport evidence (either existing or through future transport assessments submitted as part of development planning applications) or as agreed by National Highways…”.
We hope you find these comments useful. We would be happy to discuss if you require clarification of further information.